CELEX: C1999/204/47
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-142/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Première Instance de Tournai by judgment of that court of 31 March 1999 in the case of Floridienne S.A. and Berginvest S.A. against the Belgian State

C 204/26                EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                     17.7.1999
— The Portuguese legislation does not impose the obligation                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura di
     to seek prior authorisation from the competent authorities               Treviso, Oderzo Division, by order of that court of 7
     for the operation of coal gasification and liquefaction                  April 1999, in the case of Giuseppe Busolin and Others
     plants, as provided for in Article 3(1) and point 1.3 of                 against Ispettorato Centrale Repressione Frodi — Ufficio
     Annex I to the directive. The fact that, possibly, there are             di Conegliano — Ministero delle Risorse Agricole, Ali-
     no coal gasification and liquefaction plants in Portugal at                                    mentari e Forestali
     the present time is irrelevant.
— The Portuguese legislation does not impose the obligation                                           (Case C-155/99)
     to seek prior authorisation from the competent authorities
     for the operation of plants for the manufacture of asbestos,
     as provided for in Article 3(1) and point 3.3 of Annex I to
     the directive.                                                                                   (1999/C 204/48)
(1) OJ L 188 of 16 July 1984, p. 20.                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                              European Communities, by order of the Pretura di Treviso,
                                                                              Oderzo Division, of 27 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                              the case of Giuseppe Busolin and Others against Ispettorato
                                                                              Centrale Repressione Frodi — Ufficio di Conegliano —
                                                                              Ministero delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali on the
                                                                              following questions:
                                                                              — whether the Commission’s decision to allocate the quantity
                                                                                  for compulsory distillation between the various production
                                                                                  regions for the wine year 1993/94 (as referred to in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                             Regulation (EC) No 343/94) (1) was invalid for infringe-
Première Instance de Tournai by judgment of that court                            ment of Article 39(11)(b) of Regulation (EEC)
of 31 March 1999 in the case of Floridienne S.A. and                              No 822/87(2) (as amended by Regulation (EEC)
           Berginvest S.A. against the Belgian State                              1972/87) (3) through failure to ascertain the existence of
                                                                                  the statutory prerequisite under that same legislation,
                                                                                  namely a significant difference between the quantities
                           (Case C-142/99)                                        available/normal consumption ratio for 1993/94 and the
                                                                                  same ratio for the reference years 1981/82, 1982/83 and
                                                                                  1983/84;
                           (1999/C 204/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        — whether the Commission’s decision to allocate the quantity
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                               for compulsory distillation between the various production
Première Instance, Tournai (Court of First Instance, Tournai)                     regions for the year 1993/94 (pursuant to Regulation (EC)
of 31 March 1999, received at the Court Registry on 21 April                      No 343/94) was valid, given that it appears to be defective
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Floridienne S.A.                    for infringement of Article 190 (or for an ‘inadequate
and Berginvest S.A. v Belgian State on the following question:                    statement of reasons’) of the EC Treaty in that neither
                                                                                  Regulation No 343/94 nor the measures and documents
                                                                                  underlying refer to any assessment as to the existence of
                                                                                  the statutory precondition that the ratio between quantities
‘Must share dividends and interest on loans always be excluded                    available and normal consumption for the year 1993/94
from the denominator of the fraction (1) used to calculate the                    should differ significantly from that for the reference years
deductible proportion, even where the company receiving such                      1981/82, 1982/83 and 1983/84;
dividends and interest has involved itself in the management of
the undertakings paying or allocating them, save in the exercise
of its rights as shareholder?’
                                                                              — whether Regulation (EC) No 343/94, requiring Italy to
                                                                                  distil 12 150 000 hl, is invalid for infringement of the
                                                                                  principle of reasonableness, manifest error and inconsist-
                                                                                  ency in relation to the object pursued, in the light of the
(1) The fraction referred to in Article 19 of the Sixth Council Directive         system of calculation used by the Commission ... on
    77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws                    account of the unreasonableness and illogicality of the
    of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
    system of value tax : uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145,             updating of the percentage of 85 (4), comparing parameters
    p. 1).                                                                        that were entirely divorced from the reality of the wine
                                                                                  market in 1993/94. Moreover, for the reasons and in the
                                                                                  light of the calculations given above, the same rules also
                                                                                  appear to be invalid as being discriminatory against Italy
                                                                                  and thus in breach of the prohibition on discrimination in
                                                                                  Article 40 of the EC Treaty;