CELEX: C2000/079/32
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-14/00: Action brought on 18 January 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

18.3.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 79/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Action brought on 18 January 2000 by the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(a) Declare that, by failing to make available to the Com-
    mission LIT 29 223 322 226 and by not paying default
    interest on that amount as from 1 January 1996, the Italian                                (Case C-14/00)
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
    Community provisions on own resources;
                                                                                               (2000/C 79/32)
(b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 January
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
The Commission and the Italian Republic have agreed that the          and Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to
duties relating to the importation into Italy of goods from           the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
third countries intended for San Marino during the period             in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
running from 1 January 1979 to 30 November 1992 (that is              Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
to say before the entry into force of the interim commercial
and customs union agreement between the Community and
San Marino of 16 December 1991 (1), did not constitute                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community own resources in view of San Marino’s sovereign
state status and of the fact that it was not a Member State of
the Community. It was moreover agreed that a specific                 — Declare that, by prohibiting products containing vegetable
distinction was to be drawn between the duties payable to San              fats other than cocoa butter, which are lawfully manufac-
Marino and the duties levied by Italy which constituted                    tured in Member States which permit the use of such
Community own resources and that, in order to protect the                  substances, from being marketed in Italy under the name
Community’s financial interests, such a distinction could not              with which they are marketed in the State of origin
be made unilaterally by Italy without the approval of the                  and requiring that such products be marketed only on
Commission. However, no agreement was reached with regard                  condition that they bear the words ‘chocolate substitute’,
to the method to be employed when determining the duties                   the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
payable to San Marino; Italy has therefore improperly reduced              Article 28 of the Treaty; and
the own resources payable to the Community by carrying out
deductions, without the prior approval of the Commission,
according to a method contested by the Commission.                    — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
According to the Commission, by continuing to make
deductions unilaterally from its payment of own resources
without the approval of the Commission and without                    Pleas in law and main arguments
responding to the Commission’s request to justify such
deductions, thus threatening improperly to reduce the Com-
munity’s own resources, Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the Treaty.                                                     A ministerial circular adopted in 15 March 1996 lays down
                                                                      that chocolate products originating in the United Kingdom,
                                                                      Ireland and Denmark containing vegetable fats other than
The Commission accordingly asked the Italian Government to            cocoa butter may be marketed in Italy only under the name
make available to the Commission LIT 29 223 322 226 and               ‘chocolate substitute’.
to pay default interest thereon as from 1 January 1996, the
date from which such interest was due in view of the failure to
pay the principal sum, and until that sum is made available.
                                                                      The chocolate products in question are products which are
                                                                      lawfully manufactured in Member States which permit the
Since the abovementioned amount has not been made available           addition of vegetable fats and which comply with the manufac-
to the Commission and since the relevant default interest has         turing requirements laid down in Council Directive
not been paid, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its          73/241/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the approximation of the
obligations under the Community provisions relating to own            laws of the Member States relating to cocoa and chocolate,
resources.                                                            products intended for human consumption (1).
(1) OJ 1992 L 359, p. 14.
                                                                      The Italian authorities claim that the national provisions in
                                                                      question do not prevent access to the Italian market for the
                                                                      products concerned but rather provide for a namechange in
                                                                      the interests of consumer protection.
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/18                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
According to the Commission, it cannot be stated that the                   — should a deduction be allowed by way of general
mere presence of vegetable fats changes the nature of the                       expenses?
product to the extent that the name ‘chocolate’ could create
confusion as to the essential nature of the product itself.
                                                                       (1) Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                           harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
The requirement that the name of the product be changed (to                turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
its detriment) must be precluded inasmuch as it seriously                  basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1).
prejudices recognition of the product as part of a category to
which it rightfully belongs. As such, it is a disproportionate
measure with regard to the objective pursued, namely con-
sumer information.
(1) OJ 1973 L 228, p. 23.                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                       Asti — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari, by
                                                                       order of 17 December 1999 in the criminal proceedings
                                                                                 pending before it against Maurizio Perino
                                                                                                 (Case C-18/00)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admin-                                        (2000/C 79/34)
istratif de Lille (4ème Chambre) by judgment of that court
of 6 January 2000 in the case of Cibo Participations S.A.              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
against Directeur Régional des Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Ca-               European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Asti
                                 lais                                  (District Court, Asti) of 17 December 1999, received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 20 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                           (Case C-16/00)                              in the criminal proceedings pending against Maurizio Perino
                                                                       on the following question:
                           (2000/C 79/33)
                                                                       Does Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (1)
                                                                       permit the storage of waste for submission, not only to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 operations listed in points R1 to R12 of Annex IIB, but also to
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Adminis-              another, separate phase of storage, or does the directive require
tratif de Lille (4ème Chambre) (Administrative Court, Lille)           persons storing waste to deliver it solely to a person who
(Fourth Chamber) of 6 January 2000, received at the Court              carries out operations to recover the waste?
Registry on 19 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Cibo Participations S.A. against Directeur Régional des
Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais on the following questions:               (1) Council Directive 91/156/EEC amending Directive 75/442/EEC
                                                                           on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).
1. What are the criteria for establishing ‘involvement’? Can it
     be inferred from the provision of paid services, or the
     running of a group of companies by its holding company,
     or de facto management which excludes the independence
     of the subsidiary, or some other factor?
2. Where there is ‘involvement’, does the receipt of dividends         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of
     remain outside the scope of value added tax for any reason        Session, Scotland, by request of that Court of 11 January
     other than economic activity, in that such receipts are not       2000, in the case of Booker Aquaculture Limited, trading
     the consideration for the supply of goods or services,            as Marine Harvest McConnell, against the Scottish Minis-
                                                                                                       ters
     — or, taking account of the fact that fees are incurred in
         connection with the acquisition of shares, the specific                                 (Case C-20/00)
         purpose of which is to enable direct participation in
         economic activity, do dividend receipts fall within the                                 (2000/C 79/35)
         scope of value added tax and, if so, are such receipts
         exempt under Article 13B(1)(d) of the Sixth Council           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         Directive (1) or taxable?                                     European Communities by a request of the Court of Session,
                                                                       Scotland, of 11 January 2000, which was received at the Court
3. If the receipt of dividends remains outside the scope of            Registry on 24 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
     value added tax, what are the implications for deduction:         case of Booker Aquaculture Limited, trading as Marine Harvest
                                                                       McConnell, against the Scottish Ministers, on the following
     — does no right remain to deduct tax on fees incurred in          questions:
         connection with the acquisition of shares, on the
         ground that those fees do not relate to a taxable             1. Where, in implement of an obligation under Directive
         transaction, or                                                    93/53/EEC (1) to provide control measures for an outbreak