CELEX: C1999/352/47
Language: en
Date: 1999-12-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-372/99: Action brought on 6 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

C 352/28                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.12.1999
Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December 1998                 Action brought on 4 October 1999 by the Commission
(G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary supplement)                         of the European Communities against Ireland
compatible with Community law, in particular with Articles 10
and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch                                       (Case C-370/99)
as it provides that the administrative charge is payable at a flat
annual rate for registration of ‘other company documents’ for                                       (1999/C 352/46)
each of the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of
the sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private                 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
limited companies?                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 1999 by
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                           by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and by Manuel Desantes, a
Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with Com-                     national expert seconded to its Legal Service, with an address
munity law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on the sums              for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the sum provided for             Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg,
by Article 11(1) should be calculated according to the legal               Luxembourg.
rate in force at the date on which that Law entered into force
(2,5 % per annum) and not according to the rate provided for
by Article 5 with respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of                     The Applicant claims that the Court should:
26 January 1961, as subsequently amended?
                                                                           — find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
                                                                               administrative provisions necessary to comply with Euro-
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.                             pean Parliament and Council Directive 96/9/EC of
                                                                               11 March 1996 concerning the legal protection of databas-
                                                                               es (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                               said Directive, and
                                                                           — order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Korneuburg (Austria) by order of that court of 21 Sep-
tember 1999 in the case of Hugo BOSS Aktiengesellschaft                    Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
                           v Coalle FA-93                                  a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                           upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                                                                           on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                          (Case C-367/99)                                  laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January
                                                                           1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
                          (1999/C 352/45)                                  to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
                                                                           the Commission.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht                         (1) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.
(Regional Court) Korneuburg (Austria) of 21 September 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 4 October 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Hugo BOSS Aktiengesellschaft
v Coalle FA-93 on the following question:
On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of                   Action brought on 6 October 1999 by the Commission
counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European            of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in                                     (Case C-372/99)
the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
the European Community, temporarily detained by the cus-
toms authorities in a Member State on the basis of that                                             (1999/C 352/47)
regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has                   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
its registered office in a Member State of the European                    Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 October
Community?                                                                 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                           Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                           of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.12.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 352/29
The applicant claims that the Court, rejecting all contrary            The applicant claims that the Court should:
applications, objections or inferences, should:
                                                                       1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
— declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
    obligations under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April
    1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1), in that it
    has omitted to adopt the measures necessary in order to:               (a) Council Directive 96/51/EC (1) of 23 July 1996
                                                                                amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives
    — apply the provisions of that directive to all contracts                   in feedingstuffs;
         concluded between consumers and sellers or suppliers;
                                                                           (b) Directive 96/93/EC (2) of 17 December 1996 on the
    — transpose the third sentence of Article 5 of that                         certification of animals and animal products;
         directive;
    — transpose in its entirety Article 6(2) of that directive;            or in any event by failing to communicate such provisions,
                                                                           the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                           the Treaty and those directives;
    — transpose in its entirety Article 7(3) of that directive;
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                         2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission claims that the Italian legislation transposing
Directive 93/13/EEC does not fulfil all the requirements of that       Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive. In particular, the Commission asserts that the Italian      directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
Republic has committed the following infringements:                    each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
                                                                       required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
                                                                       their transposition. That time-limit expired without the Italian
— the scope of application of the national legislation is more         Republic having brought into force the necessary provisions
    restricted than that of the directive;                             in order to comply with the directive referred to in the
                                                                       Commission’s application.
— the third sentence of Article 5 of the directive has not been
    transposed;
— Articles 6(2) and 7(3) of the directive have not been                (1) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 39.
    transposed in their entirety.                                      (2) OJ 1997 L 13, p. 18.
(1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-336/98 (1)
Action brought on 12 October 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                                        (1999/C 352/49)
                         (Case C-395/99)                               By order of 21 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case-336/98 (reference for a preliminary
                         (1999/C 352/48)                               ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la
                                                                       Lombardia): Agenzia R di Recapito Srl v Poste Italiane SpA
                                                                       and Rinaldi Angenzia di Recapito Srl.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 October
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
represented by Francesco P. Ruggeri Laderchi, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.