CELEX: C1997/009/20
Language: en
Date: 1997-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 13 November 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-362/96)

11 . 1 . 97           1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 9/ 11
  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                  The Commission of the European Communities claims
  Kôln by order of that court of 29 August 1996 in the case                that the Court should :
  of Société générale des grandes sources d'eaux minérales
             françaises against Bundesamt fiir Finanzen                    — declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                                 prescribed time limits the laws, regulations and
                            ( Case C-361 /96 )
                                                                                 administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                 ( 97/C 9/19 )                                   with Commission Directive 93/106/EC (') amending
                                                                                 Directive 92/76/EEC (2 ) recognizing protected zones
                                                                                 exposed to particular plant health risks in the
                                                                                 Community, and Commission Directive 94/3/EC ( 3 ) of
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          21 January 1994 establishing a procedure for the
 European Communities by order of the Second Senate of                           notification of interception of a consignment or a
 the Finanzgericht Koln ( Finance Court, Cologne ) of                            harmful organism from third countries and presenting
 29 August 1996, received at the Court Registry on                               an imminent phytosanitary danger, and by failing to
  12 November 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                      communicate those measures to the Commission, the
 Societe generate des grandes sources d'eaux minerales                           Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
 frangaises against Bundesamt fur Finanzen ( Federal                             obligations pursuant to Article 2 of Directive 93/106/
 Finance Office ) on the following questions :                                   EC and Article 7 of Directive 94/3/EC respectively,
                                                                          — order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
 ( a ) Does Article 3 ( a ) of the eighth Council Directive 79/                 costs .
        1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization
       of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       taxes ( J ) preclude the Member States from providing
       in their national law that where an invoice or import              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
       document is lost for reasons beyond the control of a               Case C-356/96 (4 ); the time limit for transposition expired
       taxable person referred to in Article 2 of the Directive,          on 15 December 1993 in the case of Directive 93/ 106/EC
       that person may prove his entitlement to a refund by               and on 5 May 1994 in the case of Directive 94/3/EC.
       submitting a duplicate of tfie invoice or import
       document ?                                                         (') OJ No L 298 , 3 . 12 . 1993 , p. 34 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No L 305 , 21 . 10 . 1992 , p. 12 .
                                                                          ( 3 ) OJ No L 32, 5 . 2. 1994, p. 37.
 ( b ) Should the first question be answered in the negative,             (4) OJ No C 370, 7. 12 . 1996, p. 10.
       does it follow from the prohibition on discrimination
       under Community law and from the principle of
       neutrality of turnover taxes that a taxable person
       referred to in Article 2 of the Directive, who loses an
       invoice or import document referred to in Article 3 ( a )
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
       for reasons beyond his control, has the right to prove
                                                                         Catania, First Civil Chamber, by order of that court of
       his entitlement to a refund by submitting a duplicate
                                                                          14 October 1996 in the case of ISFA SpA v. Ministero
       of the invoice or import document ?                                                              delle Finanze
                                                                                                    ( Case C-363/96 )
( J ) OJ No L 331 , 27. 12 . 1979, p . 11 .
                                                                                                         ( 97/C 9/21 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of Tribunale di Catania
                                                                         ( District Court, Catania ), First Civil Chamber, of
                                                                          14 October 1996, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 13 November 1996 , for a preliminary ruling
Action brought on 13 November 1996 by the Commission                     in the case of ISFA SpA v. Ministero delle Finanze on the
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                   following question :
                              Luxembourg
                                                                         Is it permissible under Community law for the competent
                          ( Case C-362/96 )                              authorities of the Italian State reasonably to rely on
                                                                         national procedural rules concerning the periods within
                               ( 97/C 9/20 )                             which proceedings must be brought ( in particular, the
                                                                         second paragraph of Article 13 of Presidential Decree
                                                                         No 641 of 26 October 1972 concerning a three-year
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                      period for bringing actions ) in proceedings brought against
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      those authorities by an individual before a national court
Communities on 13 November 1996 by the Commission                        for the purpose of safeguarding the right to reimbursement
of the European Communities, represented by Gerard                       of amounts unduly paid ( in respect of administrative
Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an                charges under Decree Law No 853/84, converted into Law
address for service in Luxemburg at the office of Carlos                 No 17/85 , as subsequently amended ) in contravention of
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                              the rules laid down in Council Directive 69/335/EEC of