CELEX: C1996/031/10
Language: en
Date: 1996-02-03 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 1995 in Case C-134/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias): Esso Española SA v. Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias (Petroleum products - Obligation to supply a particular area)

3 . 2 . 96             EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          No C 31 /5
3 . A national of a Member State who pursues a                         of Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
     professional activity on a stable and continuous basis in         pending before that court between Elisabeth Jacquier, nee
     another Member State where he holds himself out from              Casarin and Directeur General des Impots — on the
     an established professional base to, amongst others,              interpretation of Article 95 of the EC Treaty — the Court
     nationals of that State comes under the provisions of the         ( Second Chamber ), composed of G. Hirsch, President of
     chapter relating to the right of establishment and not            the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and F. A. Schockweiler
     those of the chapter relating to services.                        ( Rapporteur ), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
                                                                       L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
4 . The possibility for a national of a Member State to                judgment on 30 November 1995 , in which it rules :
     exercise his right of establishment, and the conditions
     for the exercise of that right, must be determined in the         Article 95 of the EC Treaty does not preclude the
     light of the activities which he intends to pursue on the         application of national rules on motor vehicle taxation
     territory of the host Member State.                               which provide for an increase in the progression coefficient
                                                                       of the kind at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as that
5 . Where the taking-up of a specific activity is not subject          increase does not have the effect of favouring the sale of
     to any rules in the host State, a national of any other           vehicles of domestic manufacture over the sale of vehicles
     Member State will be entitled to establish himself on the         imported from other Member States.
     territory of the first State and pursue that activity there.
     On the other hand, where the taking-up or the pursuit of
                                                                       (') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .
     a specific activity is subject to certain conditions in the
     host Member State, a national ofanother Member State
     intending to pursue that activity must in principle
     comply with them .
6 . National measures liable to hinder or make less
     attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     guaranteed by the Treaty must fulfil four conditions:
     they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner;                                          ( Sixth Chamber)
     they must be justified by imperative requirements in the                                   of 30 November 1995
     general interest; they must be suitable for securing the
     attainment of the objective which they pursue; and they           in Case C-134/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
     must not go beyond what it necessary in order to                  the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias ): Esso
     attain it.                                                            Española SA v. Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias ( x )
                                                                       (Petroleum products — Obligation to supply a particular
7. Member States must take account of the equivalence of                                                   area)
     diplomas and, if necessary, proceed to a comparison of                                           ( 96/C 31 / 10 )
     the knowledge and qualifications required by their
     national rules and those of the person concerned.
                                                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
(') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                 published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-134/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  of the EEC Treaty from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de
                                                                        Canarias (High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands,
                        ( Second Chamber )
                                                                       Spain ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                     of 30 November 1995                                before that court between Esso Espanola SA and the
in Case C-l 13/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from             Comunidad Autonoma de Canarias on the interpretation of
the French Cour de Cassation ): Elisabeth Jacquier v.                   Articles 3 ( c ), 5 , 6 , 30, 36 , 52, 53 , 56 , 85 and 102 ( 1 ) of the
                Directeur Général des Impôts C )                        EC Treaty, the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of
                                                                        G. Hirsch, acting as President of the Chamber,
 (Article 95 of the Treaty — Differential tax on motor                  G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn
                               vehicles)                                ( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges ; G. Cosmas,
                            ( 96/C 31 /09 )                             Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                        on 30 November 1995 , in which it rules as follows :
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         1 . Articles 3 (c), 52 and 53 of the EC Treaty are not
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                applicable to circumstances wholly internal to a
           published in the European Court Reports)                          Member State, such as where a company which has its
                                                                             head office in a Member State and pursues its activities
 In Case C-l 13/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177                there is required to comply with rules whereby the
 of the EC Treaty from the French Cour de Cassation ( Court                  regional authorities of a Member State responsible for
 ---pagebreak--- No C 31 /6          MEN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     3 . 2 . 96
     governing an archipelago forming part ofthe territory of               decision ordering expulsion before a competent
     that State require all petroleum product wholesalers                   authority has given its opinion.
     wishing to extend their activities to that part of the
     national territory to supply a certain number of islands
     in the archipelago, having regard to the problems of             2 . Article 9 (1 ) of Directive 64/221 /EEC does not preclude
     supplying insular regions.                                             the competent authority referred to in that provision
                                                                            from being appointed by the same administrative
                                                                            authority as takes the decision ordering expulsion,
2 . Such rules are compatible with Article 85, read in                      provided that the competent authority can perform its
     conjunction with the second paragraph ofArticle 5, and                 duties in absolute independence and is not subject to any
     with Article 30 of the EC Treaty.                                      control by the authority empowered to take the
                                                                            measures provided for in the Directive. It is for the
                                                                            national court to determine in each case whether those
3 . Article 102 (1 ) of the EC Treaty does not give rise to
     individual rights which the courts must protect.                       requirements have been met.
                                                                      ( 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
(') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       ( Sixth Chamber )                                                        ( Fifth Chamber)
                    of 30 November 1995                                                    of 30 November 1995
in Case C-l 75/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-l 18/95 : Commission of the European
the Court of Appeal ): The Queen v. Secretary of State for the                       Communities v. Italian Republic ( J )
       Home Department, ex parte John Gallagher ( ] )                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Freedom of movement for persons — Derogations —                      Directives 92/33/EEC and 92/34/EEC — Failure to
Decisions concerning the control of foreign nationals —                                               transpose)
Decision ordering expulsion — Prior opinion of the                                                 ( 96/C 31 / 12 )
                     competent authority)
                          ( 96/C 31 / 11 )
                                                                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                 published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-175/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Court of Appeal, London, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that             In Case C-l 18/95 : Commission of the European
court between The Queen and Secretary of State for the                Communities ( Agent: Eugenio de March ) v. Italian Republic
Home Department, ex parte John Gallagher — on the                     ( Agents : Umberto Leanza and Maurizio Fiorilli ) —
interpretation of Council Directive 64/22 1 /EEC of                   application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within
25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures              the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals            administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
which are justified on grounds of public policy, public               Directive 92/33/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of
security or public health ( OJ, English Special Edition               vegetable propagating and planting material, other than
 1963-1964, p. 117 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                   seed ( OJ 1992 , No L 157, p. 1 ) and Council Directive
composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber,                  92/34/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of fruit plant
G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G.             propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate                 production ( OJ 1992 , No L 157, p. 10 ), the Italian Republic
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has            has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the
given a judgment on 30 November 1995 , the operative part              Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward,
of which is as follows :                                              President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, C. Gulmann,
                                                                      P. Jann and L. Sevon ( Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas,
                                                                       Advocate General ; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
 1 . Article 9 (I ) of Council Directive 64/221 /EEC of                30 November 1995 the operative part of which is as
     25 February 1964 on the coordination of special                   follows :
     measures concerning the movement and residence of
     foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of
     public policy, public security or public health must be           1 . By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
     interpreted as meaning that, save in cases of urgency, it               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     prohibits the administrative authority from taking a                    Council Directive 92/33/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the