CELEX: C2001/161/10
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-02 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-162/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of movement for workers — Freedom of establishment — Dentists — Residence conditions)

2.6.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 161/5
1.    Orders Vetroresina Spa (TVR) to pay the Commission of the            1.    Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to
      European Communities the sum of EUR 77 558,80, together                    the supply of services consisting in making road infrastructure
      with interest at the agreed rate from 1 February 1990 until the            available to users on payment of a toll, the Kingdom of Spain
      debt is paid in full;                                                      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(3)(a) of the
                                                                                 Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                                the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                                 turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
3.    Dismisses Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (TVR)’s counterclaim;                 basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 96/95/EC
                                                                                 of 20 December 1996;
4.    Orders Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (M) to pay the costs.
                                                                           2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 18 January 2001
                                                                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-83/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                                                     of 18 January 2001
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                     in Case C-162/99: Commission of the European Communi-
Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Application                                        ties v Italian Republic (1)
               of a reduced rate to motorway tolls)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                            (2001/C 161/09)                                Freedom of movement for workers — Freedom of establish-
                                                                                      ment — Dentists — Residence conditions)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                                       (2001/C 161/10)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-83/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Dı́az-Llanos La Roche and C. Gómez de la Cruz) v
Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde) — application                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
for a declaration that, by applying a reduced rate of value                                    in the European Court Reports)
added tax to the supply of services consisting in making road
infrastructure available to users, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the Sixth             In Case C-162/99: Commission of the European Communities
Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the                       (Agents: F.P. Ruggen Laderchi and B. Mongin) v Italian Republic
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                 (Agents: U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri) — application for a
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                 declaration that:
basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 1977, p. 1), as amended by
Council Directive 96/95/EC of 20 December 1996 (OJ L 338,                  —     by allowing Legislative Decree No 233 of the Provisional
1996, p. 89) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La                     Head of State of 13 September 1946, despite amendment
Pergola (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,                     by Article 9 of Law No 362 of 8 November 1991, to
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,                          remain in force in such a way as to leave dentists
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                      practising in Italy still subject to a de facto residence
on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                                 requirement,
 ---pagebreak--- C 161/6                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.6.2001
—      by maintaining in force Article 15 in Title IV of Law                  1.   Must Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (1) on waste
       No 409 of 24 July 1985, which refers to Article 1 of Law                    (the Framework Directive) be interpreted as permitting a
       No 1398 of 14 December 1964, having the effect that                         process for processing waste in which more than one
       only dentists of Italian nationality may remain registered                  operation is performed, as described above, to be assessed
       as practitioners upon transferring their residence to                       as a whole?
       another Member State,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               2.   If so, does the process concerned constitute recovery
Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                         within the meaning of R1, R3 and R5 of Annex 11 B to
Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                             the Framework Directive if it results in the complete use
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-                        of the waste employed therein?
ris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and F. Macken,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                  3.a. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, is the
given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                  extent (expressed as calorific values) to which the waste
                                                                                   contributes to the incineration process or the extent
1.     Declares that:
                                                                                   (expressed as the level of material re-used) to which the
       —     by allowing Legislative Decree No 233 of the Provisional              ash residues from that waste contribute to the production
             Head of State of 13 September 1946 on the reconstitution              process relevant as regards the classification of each
             of the associations of the health-care professions and the            individual operation as recovery or disposal (R1, R3 and
             regulation of the practice of those professions, despite              R5 and D10 respectively)?
             amendment by Article 9 of Law No 362 of 8 November
             1991 on the rules for the re-organisation of the pharma-         3.b. If so, on the basis of which criteria is it necessary to
             ceutical sector, to remain in force in such a way as to leave         assess whether or not the contribution is sufficient for
             dentists practising in Italy still subject to a de facto              classification as recovery? In the absence of Community
             residence requirement,                                                criteria in this respect is it possible to apply national
       —     by maintaining in force Article 15 of Law No 409 of                   criteria?
             24 July 1985 on the profession of dental surgeon and on
             the provisions concerning the right of establishment and the     4.   If one operation must be classified as recovery and
             freedom to provide services of dentists who are nationals of          another operation as disposal, how must the process be
             Member States of the European Communities, which refers               regarded as a whole?
             to Article 1 of Law No 1398 of 14 December 1964
             amending and supplementing Law No 736 of 10 July
             1960 as regards the registration of Italian members of the
                                                                              (1) OJ L 194, 1975, p. 39.
             health-care professions residing abroad, having the effect
             that only dentists of Italian nationality may remain regis-
             tered with their professional association upon transferring
             their residence to another Member State,
       the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
       Articles 39 EC and 43 EQ;
2.     Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                     Appeal brought on 19 March 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
                                                                              Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 1 February
                                                                              2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                              of the European Communities in Case T-1/99 between
                                                                              T. Port GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State                                         European Communities
by order of 13 March 2001 in the case of Verol Recycling
Limburg B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimte-
                  lijke Ordening en Milieubeheer                                                      (Case C-122/01 P)
                            (Case C-116/01)
                                                                                                       (2001/C 161/12)
                            (2001/C 161/11)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 February 2001
European Communities by order of 13 March 2001 by the                         by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Raad van State (Council of State), which was received at the                  European Communities in Case T-1/99 between T. Port GmbH
Court Registry on 15 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                  & Co. KG and the Commission of the European Communities
the case of Verol Recycling Limburg B.V. and Minister van                     was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer on                     Communities on 19 March 2001 by T. Port GmbH & Co. KG,
the following questions:                                                      represented by G. Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne.