CELEX: C2000/034/23
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-435/99: Action brought on 12 November 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

C 34/12                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.2.2000
may not, without infringing the directive, adopt legal pro-                 Action brought on 12 November 1999 by the Com-
visions which prohibit such a service. Article 47(1)(a) of                  mission of the European Communities against the Portu-
Decree-Law No 240/97 is therefore contrary to the directive                                          guese Republic
in so far as it prohibits the provision of ‘call-back’ services.
                                                                                                    (Case C-435/99)
(1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on compe-
     tition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L                                (2000/C 34/23)
     192, p. 10).
(2) Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending
     Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full
                                                                            An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
     competition in telecommunications markets (OJ 1996 L 74,               the Court of Justice on 12 November 1999 by the Commission
     p. 13).                                                                of the European Communities, represented by Lena Ström,
                                                                            Legal Adviser, and António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                            as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                            office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service,
                                                                            Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                            (a) Declare that, by not forwarding to the Commission the
                                                                                reports needed to comply with:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6, by
orders of that court of 30 September 1999 and 14 Octo-                          — Article 13(1) of Council Directive 76/464/EEC (1) of
ber 1999 in the cases of (1) Panarotta 2002 Srl against                             4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous
Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Trento; and (2) NTB SpA                                  substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
(formerly Nuova Tessilbrenta SpA) against Ufficio                                   the Community;
                Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento
                                                                                — Article 14 of Council Directive 78/176/EEC (2) of
                                                                                    20 February 1978 on waste from the titanium dioxide
                   (Cases C-433/99 and C-434/99)                                    industry, as amended by Directive 83/29/EEC (3);
                            (2000/C 34/22)                                      — Article 16 of Council Directive 78/659/EEC (4) of
                                                                                    18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing
                                                                                    protection or improvement in order to support fish
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              life, as amended by the 1985 Act of Accession;
European Communities by orders of the Commissione Tributa-
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First
Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 30 September 1999                           — Article 16(1) of Council Directive 80/68/EEC (5) of
and 14 October 1999, received at the Court Registry on                              17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater
11 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of                          against pollution caused by certain dangerous sub-
(1) Panarotta 2002 Srl against Ufficio Imposte Dirette di                           stances;
Trento; and (2) NTB SpA (formerly Nuova Tessilbrenta SpA)
against Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento on the                       — Article 5(1) and the first paragraph of Article 5(2) of
following question:                                                                 Council Directive 82/176/EEC(6) of 22 March 1982
                                                                                    on limit values and quality objectives for mercury
                                                                                    discharges by the chlor-alkali;
‘Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at
the rate of 0,75 % per annum pursuant to Decree-Law                             — Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 83/513/EEC (7)
No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the taxable                           of 26 September 1983 on limit values and quality
base of the tax on net assets consisting of a company’s capital                     objectives for cadmium discharges;
disclosed annually by the balance sheet which has already
borne the tax on contributions of 1 %?’                                         — Article 6(1) of Council Directive 84/156/EEC (8) of
                                                                                    8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives
                                                                                    for mercury discharges by sectors other than the
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412).                                 chlor-alkali electrolysis industry;
                                                                                — Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 84/491/EEC (9)
                                                                                    of 9 October 1984 on limit values and quality objec-
                                                                                    tives for discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane;
 ---pagebreak--- 5.2.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 34/13
     — Article 6(1) and (2) of Council Directive                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
         86/280/EEC (10) of 12 June 1986 on limit values and            on 16 November 1999 by Karl L. Meyer, represented by
         quality objectives for discharges of certain dangerous         Jean-Dominique des Arcis, with an address for service in
         substances included in List I of the Annex to Directive        Luxembourg at the office of Mr Pakowski, Ambassador of the
         76/464/EEC, as last amended by Directive                       Federal Republic of Germany, 20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter.
         90/415/EEC (11),
     having regard to the wording of those provisions inserted          The appellant claims that the Court should:
     by Article 2(1) of Directive 91/692/EEC (12), the Portuguese
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the            — Declare all his claims admissible and well founded;
     abovementioned directives or under the first paragraph of
     Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article 249 of the           — Hold that the Commission’s fax of 30 March 1999 is an
     EC Treaty;                                                             act against which an action may be brought, corresponding
                                                                            to a measure affecting the legal situation of the applicant
(b) Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                         as a private European investor in French Polynesia;
                                                                        — Remit the case to the Court of First Instance for the
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                      procedure on the substance to be continued.
By virtue of the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third
paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, Member States are            Pleas in law and main arguments
to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the
obligations arising out of acts adopted by the Community
institutions and facilitate the achievement of the Community’s          Breach of Community law: The contested act was the final act
tasks, and they are required to achieve the results pursued by          of an enquiry procedure for finding out the Community
directives within the periods appointed by those directives. In         provisions and information on the conditions of Community
the present case, the Commission finds that, even though                financing, concerning the applicant’s investment in a tropical
the appointed period expired on 30 September 1995, the                  fruit plantation in Polynesia. The Court of First Instance
Portuguese Republic has still not forwarded to it the reports           wrongly declined to regard the Commission’s refusal to
on the application of the directives listed above.                      provide that documentation and information as a decision.
(1) OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23.
(2) OJ 1978 L 54, p. 19.
(3) OJ 1983 L 32, p. 28.
(4) OJ 1978 L 222, p. 1.
(5) OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43.
(6) OJ 1982 L 81, p. 29.
(7) OJ 1983 L 291, p. 1.                                                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
(8) OJ 1984 L 74, p. 49.
(9) OJ 1984 L 274, p. 11.
                                                                        Domstolen, by order of that court of 11 November 1999,
(10) OJ 1986 L 181, p. 16.                                                in the case of Riksskatteverket v Soghra Gharehveran
(11) OJ 1990 L 219, p. 49.
(12) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 48.                                                                      (Case C-441/99)
                                                                                                 (2000/C 34/25)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen of
Appeal brought on 16 November 1999 by Karl L. Meyer                     11 November 1999, which was received at the Court Registry
against the order made on 27 October 1999 by the Third                  on 19 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  Riksskatteverket v Soghra Gharehveran on the following
Communities in Case T-106/99 between Karl L. Meyer                      questions:
    and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        1. Is the exception which applies to Sweden under Article 1(2)
                        (Case C-436/99 P)                                   of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980
                                                                            on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                            relating to the protection of workers in the event of the
                          (2000/C 34/24)                                    insolvency of their employer to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                            that, in accordance with Swedish case-law as it had
An appeal against the order made on 27 October 1999 by the                  developed and was applicable until 1 July 1994, the
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                exception is applicable to an employee who did not himself
Communities in Case T-106/99 between Karl L. Meyer and the                  own any share of the undertaking but whose close relative
Commission of the European Communities was brought                          owned an essential share of that undertaking?