CELEX: C2000/247/16
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-170/00: Action brought on 9 May 2000 by the Republic of Finland against the Commission of the European Communities

26.8.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/13
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is also vitiated by         Pleas in law and main arguments
errors of law and defective reasoning in relation to the concept
of a single and continuous agreement — the Cembureau
agreement censured in Article 1 of the decision.                        The Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                        Article 2 of the said Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC, by
                                                                        maintaining in force legislation under which supplies of works
In the appellant’s submission, the contested judgment warrants          of art by artists or intermediaries and imports of works of art
censure also in the part relating to the penalty, which annulled        bought directly from artists are exempted from value added
or reduced by reason of the following considerations:                   tax.
—    erroneous assessment of the duration and seriousness of
     the alleged infringements;                                         Under the Sixth VAT Directive it is not possible to exempt
                                                                        supplies or imports of works of art from value added tax.
—    the rejection of the request for amendment of the fine;            Nor is exemption permitted under point 2(n) of Part IX of
                                                                        Annex XV to the Act concerning the conditions of accession
                                                                        of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
—    insufficient reasons for the judgment in relation to the
                                                                        Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on
     reference turnover;
                                                                        which the European Union is founded.
—    misassessment of Cementir’s criticism concerning the
     limitation referred to in Article 2(1);
                                                                        (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
—    infringement of the principles of fairness and pro-                    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
     portionality and defective reasoning in relation to the                turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     assessment of the criteria for determining fines.                      basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
(1) OJ L 343, 30.12.1994, p. 1.
                                                                        Action brought on 9 May 2000 by the Republic of Finland
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 May 2000 by the Commission of the
  European Communities against the Republic of Finland                                            (Case C-170/00)
                        (Case C-169/00)                                                          (2000/C 247/16)
                        (2000/C 247/15)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before            Communities on 9 May 2000 by the Republic of Finland,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 May               represented by Tuula Pynnä, Valtionasiamies, Legislative
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     Adviser in the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign
represented by Esa Paasivirta and Enrico Traversa, of its Legal         Affairs, acting as Agent, and Elisabeth Bygglin, Legislative
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in               Adviser in that ministry, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner            Luxembourg at the Finnish Embassy, 2 Rue Heine.
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        Finland claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Annul Commission Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March
1.   Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation under                  2000 excluding from Community financing certain
     which supplies of works of art by artists or intermediaries              expenditure incurred by the Member States under the
     and imports of works of art bought directly from artists                 Guarantee Sect on of the European Agricultural Guidance
     are exempted from value added tax, the Republic of                       and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1) in so far as it refuses to
     Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2             charge to the EAGGF the sum of FIM 7 270 885,76
     of the Sixth VAT Directive (1);                                          included in Finland’s expenditure for the 1996 and 1997
                                                                              financial years of the EAGGF Guarantee Section with
2.   Order Finland to pay the costs.                                          respect to meat premiums;
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/14                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26.8.2000
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                Action brought on 17 May 2000 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                                           Finland
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       (Case C-185/00)
                                                                                                      (2000/C 247/17)
The Commission incorrectly applied Article 5(2)(c) of Regu-
lation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on                   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), as amended             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 May
by Council Regulation (EC) No 1287/95 of 22 May 1995                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
amending Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 on the financing of the                 represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Ilkka
common agricultural policy (3), read in conjunction with                    Koskinen, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
Article 8(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of                    for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of               Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure
for clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee
Section (4).                                                                The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has breached its
                                                                                  obligations as a Member State by failing to fulfil its
The Commission did not observe the proper procedure                               obligations under Article 8(2) and (3) of Council Directive
established by those regulations for reimbursement of funding,                    92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of
since it refused, contrary to the above provisions, to fund the                   the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (1) and
expenditure which was incurred earlier than 24 months before                      Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 Octo-
the relevant written notification from the Commission to                          ber 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise
Finland concerning the results of the checks done. The                            duties on mineral oils (2), by maintaining in force the laws
Commission exceeded that time limit by the above-mentioned                        and regulations concerning the use of light fuel oil as
Commission Decision 2000/216/EC with respect to                                   motor fuel.
FIM 7 270 885,76 in the reimbursement of funding for the
1996 and 1997 financial years, in that Finland received the
written notice referred to in the above-mentioned provisions                      In particular, it is said that Finland has not implemented
only on 22 December 1998, but the reimbursement of funding                        the fiscal control referred to in Article 8 of Directive
relates, as regards the above-mentioned sum, to expenditure                       92/81/EEC with respect to the distribution and use of
which was incurred earlier than 24 months before receipt of                       light fuel oil. The possibility in Finland of lawfully using
that notification (that is, 16 October 1995 to 21 December                        as motor fuel, by paying tax (motor vehicle tax and the
1996). The documents sent by the Commission before the                            price of the fuel), light fuel oil taxable as heating oil is
letter received on 22 December 1998 were so defective that                        regarded as contrary to Article 5 of Directive 92/82/EEC;
Finland was not able effectively to defend its rights and
properly reply to the Commission’s views. In the telex sent on              2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
20 May 1997, for example, there was no reference to Regu-
lation No 1663/95, and the Commission’s letter dated 17 Sep-
tember 1998, the Finnish text of which was received by
Finland on 24 September 1998, lacked the annex referred to                  Pleas in law and main arguments
in the letter.
                                                                            Article 99 EC (formerly Article 93 of the EC Treaty) requires
                                                                            inter alia the harmonisation of legislation concerning excise
The Commission also incorrectly stated in Decision                          duties and other indirect taxation to the extent that harmonis-
2000/216/EC that it did not concern expenditure incurred                    ation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the func-
earlier than 24 months before the written notification of the               tioning of the internal market. That provision of the Treaty is
results of the checks.                                                      the legal basis both of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of
                                                                            19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of
                                                                            excise duties on mineral oils and of Council Directive
                                                                            92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the
                                                                            rates of excise duties on mineral oils.
( 1) OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37.
( 2) OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218.
( 3) OJ 1995 L 125, p. 1.                                                   In point 5(e) and (f) of Part IX of Annex XV to the Act of
( 4) OJ 1995 L 158, p. 6.
                                                                            Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, ‘List provided for
                                                                            in Article 151 of the Act of Accession’, Finland is authorised
                                                                            to derogate from certain provisions and obligations in those
                                                                            directives. Those provisions of the Act of Accession do not,