CELEX: C2000/006/16
Language: en
Date: 2000-01-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-356/99: Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Hitesys SpA

C 6/8                     EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.1.2000
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the       2. Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) of the Treaty preclude a provision
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                  of national law such as the first sentence of the fourth
    comply with Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November                       subparagraph of Article 33 Tarifpost 8 of the Gebührengesetz.
    1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights
    related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, Ireland
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.               (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
(1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                             Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Com-
                                                                             mission of the European Communities against Hitesys
                                                                                                            SpA
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                      (Case C-356/99)
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                                       (2000/C 6/16)
                         of 14 October 1999
                                                                             An action against Hitesys SpA, whose registered office is in
in Case C-439/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    Aprilia, Latina (Italy), was brought before the Court of Justice
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Sandoz GmbH v Finanzlan-                        of the European Communities on 23 September 1999 by the
desdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgen-                          Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                  land (1)                                   Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, and Mr Dal
                                                                             Ferro, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                             Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
(Loan agreements — Stamp duty — Rules governing impo-                        Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                     sition — Discrimination)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                              (2000/C 6/15)
                                                                             1. Order Hitesys SpA, the defendant company, to repay EUR
                                                                                  132 500 by way of principal amount and EUR 61 032,8
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                  by way of interest at 8,25 %, for the period running from
                                                                                  8 January 1994 to 8 September 1999, totalling EUR
                                                                                  194 443,7, to which must be added EUR 30 364 in default
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                  interest in respect of each additional day of delay until full
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                  payment is made with respect to the financing under
                                                                                  contract No JOU2-CT93-0417;
In Case C-439/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Verwaltungsgerichts-               2. order Hitesys to pay the costs.
hof, Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Sandoz GmbH v Finanzlan-
desdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland — on
the interpretation of Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty                  Pleas and main arguments
(now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC), and of Articles 1 and 4
of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the                      The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178,                   repayment of monies advanced in view of contract No
p. 5) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,                JOU2-CT93-0417 for a research project in the field of the
President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the                  non-nuclear energy-Joule II (1991-1994) programme adopted
Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch,                    by the Council of Ministers of the European Union (1). The
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                     Commission decided to terminate the contract, governed by
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             Italian law, on the ground of breach of contract by the
on 14 October 1999, in which it held that:                                   defendant.
1. Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) and (3) of the EC Treaty [now
    Articles 56(1) EC and 58(1)(b) and (3) EC] are to be interpreted         (1) Council Decision 91/484/EEC of 9 September 1991 (OJ 1991
    as not precluding the imposition of duty, under a national                   L 257, p. 37).
    provision such as the first subparagraph of Article 33 Tarifpost
    8 of the Gebührengesetz, on loans contracted in another Member
    State.