CELEX: C1995/333/17
Language: en
Date: 1995-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 October 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-327/95)

9 . 12 . 95              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 333/9
necessary to comply with the Directives referred to in the               Action brought on 17 October 1995 by the Commission of
conclusions of the Commission .                                            the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                                ( Case C-327/95 )
(')  OJ  No L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .                                                        ( 95/C 333/ 17 )
(2)  OJ  No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
(■') OJ  No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 15 .
(4)  OJ  No L 187, 7 . 7 . 1992 , p . 41 .
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         17 October 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
                                                                         Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 1° Juizo Civel da
Comarca de Lisboa by order of that court of 1 1 July 1995 in             The applicant claims that the Court should :
the case of Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, Amandio
Mauricio Martins Pechim and his wife Maria da Luz Lima
Barros Raposo Pechim against CTV — Confecgoes Texteis                    1 . declare that, by imposing a minimum price on oil-cake,
                           de Vouzela, Lda.                                   the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                           ( Case C-326/95 )                                  under the common organization of the market in
                             ( 95/C 333/ 16 )
                                                                              oils and fats established by Council Regulation
                                                                              No 136/66/EEC ( } ) of 22 September 19 66 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
European Communities by order of the 1° Juizo Civel da
Comarca de Lisboa ( Civil Court No 1 , Lisbon ) of 11 July
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                       Pleas in law and main arguments:
16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, Amandio Mauricio
Martins Pechim and his wife Maria da Luz Lima Barros                     The oil and fats industry is governed by Regulation
Raposo Pechim against CTV — Confecgoes Texteis de                        No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 and subsequent
Vouzela Lda ., on the following questions :                              amendments . Article 1 lists the products to which it applies
                                                                         ( among them oil-cake and olive-residue oils ), grouping the
                                                                         various categories according to the treatment applied to
1 . Must be BFE be regarded as an ' undertaking' and in                  them by the organization of the market. That treatment
     particular 'a public undertaking', within the meaning of            varies according to the various products and constitutes
     Articles 90 and 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?                          exhaustive and complete regulation of the organization of
                                                                         the agricultural markets in oils and fats, which leaves no
2 . May the advantage which the BFE enjoys over its                      room for unilateral and autonomous action by the Member
     competitors be interpreted as being ' State aid ' within the        States .
     meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?
                                                                         The minimum prices for purchase by oil-presses and for sale
3 . Must such advantages be taken to be restrictions to the              by oil producers, imposed in respect of oil-cake by Italian
     freedom to provide services within the Community,                   Law No 1527/61 , mainly concern ( wholesale ) marketing of
     within the meaning of Article 59 of the Treaty of                   a product covered by the common organization of the
     Rome ?                                                              market in oil and fats .
4 . Do Articles 59 , 90 ( 1 ), and 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty of Rome        It follows that the Law is contrary to and incompatible with
     have direct effect and may they be relied upon in the               the provisions governing the aforementioned common
     present proceedings ?                                               organization of the market inasmuch as it constitutes a
                                                                         national intervention measure in a field where Community
5 . Do the rules of the Treaty of Rome take precedence over              rules are exhaustive .
     and negate any conflicting national law ?
                                                                         The arguments put forward by the Italian authorities to
6 . Does the present case concern a question of Community                justify keeping in force the mandatory fixing of the
     law, or is the interpretation thereof sufficiently clear and        minimum price of oil-cake are not, in the view of the
     self-evident such as to obviate the need to make a                  Commission, of such a kind as to bring to an end the
     reference for a preliminary ruling ?                                infringement at issue . Even if it were to be accepted that the
                                                                         imposition of a minimum price could contribute to attaining
                                                                         objectives in themselves worthy of protection, it would not
                                                                         however render lawful the choice of an instrument which
 ---pagebreak--- No C 333/ 10          EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9 . 12 . 95
consists of a unilateral intervention in a field exhaustively             system in order to justify a failure to comply with its
and exclusively regulated by the common organization of                   obligations under Community law.
the market .
                                                                          (') OJ No L 119 , 11 . 5 . 1990 , p . 32 .
(') OJ, English Special Edition, Series ( I ) 1965 to 1966 , p. 221 .     ( 2 ) OJ No L 41 , 14 . 2 . 1991 , p . 15 .
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Value Added Tax
Action brought on 17 October 1995 by the Commission of                    Tribunal, Manchester, by direction of that court of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   18 September 1995 , in the case of Goldsmiths (Jewellers )
                        ( Case C-328/95 )                                       Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                          ( 95/C 333/ 18 )                                                           ( Case C-330/95 )
                                                                                                       ( 95/C 333/ 19 )
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
17 October 1995 by the Commission of the European                         European Communities by direction of the Value Added
Communities, represented by Eugenio March, Legal                          Tax Tribunal, Manchester, of 18 September 1995 , which
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  was received at the Court Registry on 19 October 1995 , for
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its               a preliminary ruling in the case of Goldsmiths (Jewellers )
Legal Service , Wagner Centre , Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                    Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the
                                                                          following question :
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                          Is the derogation contained in Article 11 ( c ) ( 1 ) of the Sixth
1 . declare that, by not adopting the measures necessary for              Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of
     the correct and full application of Council Regulation               the laws of Member States relating to turnover taxes
     ( EEC ) No 1186/90 (*) of 7 May 1990 extending the                   — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     scope of the Community scale for the classification of               basis of assessment (Directive 77/388/EEC ) (the 'Sixth
     carcases of adult bovine animals and Commission                      Directive ') (') to be interpreted as permitting a Member
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 344/91 ( 2 ) of 13 February 1991               State which enacts provisions for the refund of tax in the
                                                                          case of bad debts to exclude relief where the consideration
     laying down detailed rules for the implementation
     thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               lost consists of something other than money ?
     obligations under those regulations and the second
     paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty .                          (!) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments:
Since Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1186/90 requires
Member States to take all the measures necessary to ensure                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                          Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by
that the provisions are applied and to penalize any                       order of that court of 4 October 1995 in criminal
infringements, it requires the Member States therefore to
                                                                          proceedings against Giuseppe Piccolo ( Case C-331/95 ),
adopt in their national legal system the laws, regulations or             Mario Corbo and Others ( Case C-332/95 ) and Miranda
administrative provisions necessary actually to implement
                                                                                                Viola ( Case C-342/95 )
the Community classification scale .
                                                                                    ( Cases C-331/95 , C-332/95 and C-342/95 )
                                                                                                        ( 95/C 333/20 )
The Italian Republic has not yet taken the measures it was
required to adopt for the full and correct implementation
of Council Regulations ( EEC ) No 1186/90 and ( EEC )                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
No 344/91 and has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations               the European Communities by orders of the Pretura
under those regulations and under the second paragraph of                  Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
Article 189 of the EC Treaty. The Court has consistently                   ( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of
held that a Member State may not plead provisions,                         4 October 1995 , which were received at the Court Registry
practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal                  on 19 October 1995 ( Cases C-331/95 and C-332/95 ) and