CELEX: C2001/079/14
Language: en
Date: 2001-03-10 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2000 in Case C-363/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Catania): ISFA SpA v Ministero delle Finanze (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly identical question)

C 79/8                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           10.3.2001
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
2.    J is to pay the costs.
                                                                                                       (Third Chamber)
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.                                                                            of 5 October 2000
                                                                            in Case C-182/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            from the Tribunale di Brescia): Palazzo Piacentini Srl v
                                                                                      Amministrazione Finanzaria dello Stato (1)
                                                                            (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                               identical question)
                           (Third Chamber)                                                              (2001/C 79/15)
                         of 5 October 2000
                                                                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-363/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling by
the Tribunale di Catania): ISFA SpA v Ministero delle
                               Finanze (1)
                                                                            In Case C-182/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale di
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly                      Brescia (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                          identical question)                               pending before that court between Palazzo Piacentini Srl and
                                                                            Amministrazione Finanzaria dello Stato on the interpretation
                                                                            of Community law concerning the recovery of sums paid but
                             (2001/C 79/14)                                 not due — the Court, composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                                                                            President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet
                                                                            (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 October
                                                                            2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
In Case C-363/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunale di Catania              1.    Community law does not prevent a Member State from resisting
(District Court, Catania) (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the                 actions for repayment of charges levied in breach of Community
proceedings pending before that court between ISFA SpA and                        law by relying on a three-year time-limit under national law
Ministero delle Finanze — on the interpretation of Community                      which derogates from the ordinary rules governing actions for
law concerning the recovery of sums paid but not due — the                        the recovery of sums paid but not due between private
Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almei-                       individuals, the latter actions being subject to a more favourable
da, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet                     time-limit, provided that the time-limit in question applies in
(Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-                       the same way to actions for recovery of such charges which are
eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 October                         based on Community law as to actions based on domestic law.
2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            2.    In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings,
                                                                                  Community law does not prevent a Member State from resisting
In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Community
law does not prevent a Member State from resisting actions for                    actions for repayment of charges levied in breach of a directive
repayment of charges levied in breach of a directive by relying on a              by relying on a time-limit under national law which is reckoned
                                                                                  from the date of payment of the charges in question, even if, at
time-limit under national law which is reckoned from the date of
payment of the charges in question, even if, at that date, the directive          that date, the directive concerned had not yet been properly
concerned had not yet been properly transposed into national law.                 transposed into national law.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
(1) OJ C 9 of 11.1.1997.