CELEX: C1996/336/42
Language: en
Date: 1996-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 26 September 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-316/96)

9. 11 . 96            I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 336/21
2 . Having regard to the answer to the first question, do the         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
     said provisions apply to operations of the kind at issue in      Hamburg by order of that court of 12 August 1996
     the present case, where the owners of a hotel in the south       in the case of Lopex Export GmbH v. Hauptzollamt
     of England, as part of their business as hoteliers, offers                                Hamburg-Jonas
     to customers at a single inclusive charge a week's stay at                               ( Case C-3 15/96 )
     the hotel , transport by coach between the hotel and
                                                                                                 ( 96/C 336/41 )
     points in the north of England, and a local sight-seeing
     trip by coach during their stay at the hotel ( the transport
     elements being bought in by the owners of the hotel from         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     a coach hire company )?                                          European Communities by an order of the Joint Senate of
                                                                      the Finanzgericht Hamburg ( Hamburg Finance Court) for
                                                                      the     Lander of Hamburg, Niedersachsen and
(>) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                              Schleswig-Holstein, Fourth Senate, of 12 August 1996 ,
                                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 26 September
                                                                       1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lopex Export
                                                                      GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following
                                                                      questions :
                                                                      1 . Is the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 13 of
                                                                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 171 5/90 ( 1 ) in so far as it
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                         prescribes that binding tariff information ceases to be
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by                   valid immediately as a result of the adoption of a
order of that court of 9 September 1996 in the case of                    regulation amending the customs nomenclature, with
Daniele Annibaldi against 1 . Municipality of Guidonia and                no transitional period, compatible with Community law
             2 . the President of the Lazio Region                        from the points of view of protection of legitimate
                                                                          expectations and legal certainty ?
                         ( Case C-309/96 )
                           ( 96/C 336/40 )                            2 . If not, what are the consequences in particular in a case
                                                                          where binding tariff information, differing from the
                                                                          amended nomenclature, has been issued and/or there is
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    an export licence with an advance fixing certificate
European Communities by order of the Pretura                              which is still valid for a further six months ?
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome
District Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division ), of 9 September           Is a decision on the limited continuing validity of
1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                        binding tariff information to be measured against the
23 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               general conditions which have been developed on
Daniele Annibaldi against 1 . Municipality of Guidonia and                protection of legitimate expectations, and in particular
2 . the President of the Lazio Region on the following                    does it presuppose an expectation of the exporter to that
questions:                                                                effect which deserves protection as against the
                                                                          Community interest ? Does that also apply with respect
1 . Is a national law which requires undertakings                         to the third indent of Article 14 ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
     incorporated within a nature and archaeological park to              No 1715/90, under which the advance fixing certificate
     refrain from any activity whatsoever in the area                     must have been 'issued on the basis of the said binding
     concerned     —     which    amounts   to   a    substantial         tariff information '
     expropriation of the undertakings incorporated within
     the park itself without any provision being made for             (M OJ No L 160 , 26 . 6 . 1990, p . 1 .
     payment of compensation to the individuals whose
     property is expropriated — in breach of the
     fundamental right to property, to carry on business and
     to equal treatment by the national authorities ?
2 . Irrespective of the answer which the Court of Justice
     may consider appropriate in response to the first                Action brought on 26 September 1996 by the Commis­
     question, are the measures provided for by Article 7 of          sion of the European Communities against the Italian
     the regional law in question ( equivalent, for the                                             Republic
     purposes of proceedings under Community law, to any                                     ( Case C-3 16/96 )
     other national legislation ) in breach of the principle of                                 ( 96/C 336/42 )
     equal treatment and the related prohibition of
     discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of
     Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty of Rome ?                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                      An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 ---pagebreak---  No C 336/22             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 11 . 96
 26 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Communities, represented by Paolo Ziotti of its Legal                   Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi .
 Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi.                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         — declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                             provisions necessary to comply with Directive
— declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed                        93/60/EECf 1 ) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                         obligations under that directive and under the EC
     provisions necessary to comply with Directives                          Treaty,
     93/53/EEC ( 1 ), 93/54/EEC ( 2 ), 93/ 113/EC ( 3 ) and
     93/114/EC ( 4 ), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its      — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
     obligations under those Directives and under the EC
     Treaty,
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
     proceedings .                                                       Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive is
                                                                         binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
                                                                         State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      an obligation to comply with the time-limits set by directives
                                                                         for their implementation. In the present case, when the
                                                                         time-limit expired on 1 July 1994 , the Italian Republic had
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive is
                                                                         not taken the steps necessary to comply in full with Directive
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member                93/60/EEC .
State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
an obligation to comply with the time-limits set by directives
for their implementation . In the present case, when the                 (') OJ No L 186 , 28 . 7 . 1993 , p . 28 .
time-limit expired on 1 July 1994 in respect of Directives
93/53/EEC and 93/54/EEC, on 1 January 1995 in respect of
Article 7 of Directive 93 / 113/EC and on 1 October 1994 in
respect of Directive 93/114/EC and the remaining
provisions of Directive 93/ 113/EC, the Italian Republic had
not taken the steps necessary to comply with those
Directives .
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs­
(M   OJ No L  175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p . 23 .                             gericht Wien by order of that court of 18 September 1996 in
(2 ) OJ No L  175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p . 34 .                             the case of SPAR Osterreichische Warenhandels AG,
(3)  OJ No L  334,  31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 17.                                     Salzburg v. Finanzlandesdirektion fur Salzburg
(4)  OJ No L  334,  31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 24 .                                                   ( Case C-318/96 )
                                                                                                   ( 96/C 336/44 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the
                                                                        Verwaltungsgerichtshof Wien ( Administrative Court,
                                                                        Vienna ) of 18 September 1996 , which was received at the
Action brought on 26 September 1996 by the Commis­                      Court Registry on 30 September 1996 , for a preliminary
sion of the European Communities against the Italian                    ruling in the case of SPAR Osterreichische Warenhandels
                               Republic                                 AG, Salzburg v. Finanzlandesdirektion fur Salzburg on the
                                                                        following questions :
                          ( Case C-317/96 )
                            ( 96/C 336/43 )                              1.  Does     Article  17     of the     sixth Council Directive
                                                                             77/388/EEC ( J ) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization
                (Language of the case: Italian)                              of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                             taxes — Common system of value added tax : uniform
                                                                             basis of assessment, prohibit a Member State from
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                    charging a levy assessed at a fixed rate on the basis
                                                                             of:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 September 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Paolo Ziotti of its Legal                        ( a ) the turnover tax payable on supplies of goods and
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                           other supplies made by other traders to the person