CELEX: C2000/247/19
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-224/00: Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

26.8.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 247/15
however, authorise Finland to derogate from the provisions of                  training’issued by the Consulate General and who sub-
the said directives beyond what is specified in those points of                sequently held a temporary residence authorisation
the annex in question.                                                         restricted to vocational training activity with a specific
                                                                               employer fulfil the requirements of the second or third
Finland amended its legislation on excise duties by enacting                   indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-
the new Valmisteverotuslaki (Law on excise duties,                             Turkey Association Council on the development of the
1469/29.12.1994), which was intended to transpose Council                      Association if, from 1 October 1992 to 5 May 1997, he
Directive 94/74/EEC (3) into national legislation. Fuel duty was               was in the training relationship in question and received
amended by the Laki nestemäisten polttoaineiden valmiste-                      for that a monthly training remuneration?
verosta (Law on excise duty on liquid fuels, 1472/29.12.1994).
That law partly transposed Directives 92/81/EEC and                       2.   Does a Turkish national who is the child by birth of
92/82/EEC into national legislation. Neither in this connection                former Turkish workers in the host country fulfil the
nor subsequently was the use in motor vehicles of light fuel                   requirements of the second paragraph of Article 7 of
oil, intended for heating expressly prohibited. With respect to                Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council
that light fuel oil, no provisions or rules on fiscal control are              on the development of the Association if he was adopted
laid down either in legislation or administrative regulations.                 as an adult by German nationals with the effects of
Nor are there any provisions or rules on fiscal control with                   adoption of a minor and his kinship to his natural parents
respect to the distribution of light fuel oil intended for heating.            has thereby ceased to exist? It is sufficient in that respect
There is no control at all with respect to the distribution of                 that he was the child of Turkish workers at the time of
light fuel oil intended for heating, and the minor checks done                 his parents’ legal employment and at the start of his
alongside police road traffic control may not be regarded as                   vocational training?
comprehensive fiscal control with respect to use.
                                                                          3.   Does a Turkish national fulfil the requirements of the
                                                                               second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
Light fuel oil is obtainable in Finland, especially in thinly                  EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
populated areas, from service stations, which can sell it without              the Association if, eight years after leaving the host
fiscal control to anyone. As in Finland no controls are carried                country together with his parents who at that time were
out at all in such cases and there are no sanctions on the                     leaving definitively, he re-entered the country (without
activity of retailers, Finland cannot disclaim its obligation to               his parents) for the purpose of vocational training?
transpose Directives 92/81/EEC and 92/82/EEC in its national
legislation in all respects. It must also be stressed that Finland        4.   Does a Turkish national fulfil the requirements of the
has not been granted any derogation from the fiscal control                    second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
required in the said directives.                                               EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
                                                                               the Association if he did not take the last part of the final
(1) OJ L 316 of 31.10.1992, p. 12.                                             examination in the host country, but in his country of
(2) OJ L 316 of 31.10.1992, p. 19.                                             origin before the host country’s examining board which
(3) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 46.                                             had travelled there?
                                                                          5.   Is it compatible with Article 6 or the second paragraph
                                                                               of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey
                                                                               Association Council that, in a case where deportation has
                                                                               taken place, residence authorisation must be refused, by
                                                                               virtue of the prohibitive effect of Paragraph 8(2) of the
                                                                               Ausländergesetz (Law on Aliens, AuslG), until a time-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                       limit has, upon application, been placed on the effects of
gericht Karlsruhe by order of that court of 22 March 2000                      the deportation?
in the case of Bülen Kurz né Yüce v Land Baden-
                          Württemberg
                         (Case C-188/00)
                         (2000/C 247/18)
                                                                          Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     the European Communities against the Italian Republic
European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht
(Administrative Court) Karlsruhe of 22 March 2000, which                                          (Case C-224/00)
was received at the Court Registry on 22 May 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Bülen Kurz né Yüce v Land
Baden-Württemberg on the following questions:                                                     (2000/C 247/19)
1.    Does a Turkish national who, with the approval of the               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      competent authority for aliens, entered the country                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 May
      with a visa ‘valid only for the purpose of vocational               2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/16              EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.8.2000
represented by Carmel O’Reilly, of its Legal Service, and                  Action brought on 8 June 2000 by the Commission of the
Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the                   European Communities against the Republic of Finland
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                           (Case C-229/00)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 247/20)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
—     Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 June
      (Article 207 of the highway code) which provides for                 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      different and disproportionate treatment for offenders               represented by Ilkka Koskinen and Hans Støvlbæk, of its Legal
      according to the place of registration of their vehicles, the        Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations.               Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                           Centre, Kirchberg.
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has not adopted the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary
                                                                                 to comply with Council Directive 89/105/EEC of
                                                                                 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of
                                                                                 measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for
Article 207 of the highway code provides that, where a                           human use and their inclusion in the scope of national
provision of the highway code is infringed while driving a                       health insurance systems(1), and has thus failed in
vehicle registered abroad, the offender must pay — directly to                   particular to comply with Article 6 of that directive by
the booking officer and without being able to appeal to the                      not applying the prescribed procedure to decisions on
Prefect of the area where the offence takes place — a fine equal                 the determination of individual reimbursement categori-
to the minimum fixed for the particular type of offence or pay                   es, and failed to comply with its obligations by not
a security or show a credit document to cover a sum equal to                     publishing in negative decisions a statement of reasons
one half of the maximum of the pecuniary penalty set for the                     based on objective and verifiable criteria sufficient for the
offence. The provision provides for confiscation of the driving                  applicant;
licence if the offender fails to pay the security or to show the
guarantee. Appeal to the Prefect is not expressly provided for.
                                                                           2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
Article 202 of the Code, on the other hand, provides that, for
offences involving a vehicle registered in Italy, the offender is          Pleas in law and main arguments
allowed to pay, no later than 60 days after notification, an
amount equal to the minimum fine set for the offence. The
offender may pay the fine at the police station to which the               The Finnish authorities consider that Finland is entitled to differ
booking officer belongs or by way of bank transfer to a post               in its own national legislation from Community legislation in
office or bank account. Finally, he is entitled to appeal to the           so far as Community legislation requires transparency from
Prefect within 60 days of the notification in respect of the               the authorities of a Member State. The ground stated is that
offence.                                                                   the decisions of the Valtioneuvosto (Government) of 1964 in
                                                                           the Finnish health insurance system come under the principle
                                                                           of proportionality in accordance with the Maastricht Treaty.
                                                                           This claim has no basis. That was also stated in the Com-
The Commission takes the view that the abovementioned                      mission’s reasoned opinion.
legislation constitutes discrimination on grounds of the place
of registration of the vehicle and thus has an effect on the
outcome as a result of discrimination on grounds of national-
ity. The Italian Republic therefore has failed to fulfil its               Since Article 1 of Directive 89/105/EEC requires Member
                                                                           States to ensure that all national measures, whether laid down
obligations under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 12 EC).                                                 by law, regulation or administrative action, to control the
                                                                           prices of medicinal products for human use or to restrict the
                                                                           range of medicinal products covered by their national health
                                                                           insurance systems comply with the requirements of that
                                                                           directive, that means that it is not permitted to adopt in
                                                                           national legislation measures which differ from the provisions
                                                                           of the directive. That concerns in particular the requirement of