C-295/00
ECLI:EU:C:2001:585
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62000CC0295
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
COMMISSION v ITALY
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL ALBER delivered on 25 October 2001 1
1. The action brought by the Commission services between Member States more dif- concerns the application of the principle of ficult than the provision of services purely freedom to provide services to maritime within one Member State. 4As the Court transport. The Commission brought a held in Case C-381/93 Commission v complaint regarding the collection of har- France, the collection of separate harbour bour taxes in the ports of Trieste, Naples taxes — according to whether passengers and Genoa for passengers arriving from or are transported to a national port of the travelling to other Member States. The tax State in question or to a port of another is not payable for passengers travelling Member State — is an unjustified restric- within Italian territory. tion on the freedom to provide services in maritime transport.
2. Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 apply- 3. Under Italian Law No 82/63 5 a special ing the principle of freedom to provide tax was brought in for passengers in transit services to maritime transport between in the ports of Genoa, Naples and Trieste Member States and between Member arriving from other Member States in the States and third countries (hereinafter European Union or from third States. In 'Regulation No 4055/86') 2introduces the accordance with Article 7 of Law principle of freedom to provide services in No 255/91 6 the tax ranges from a mini- the maritime transport sector as from mum of ITL 400 to a maximum of ITL 6 1 January 1987. Under that regulation, all 000. For maritime journeys on national the rules of the EC Treaty on the freedom territory no tax is collected in accordance to provide services are applicable to mari- with Article 32(d) of Law No 82/63. That time transport between Member States. 3In exception has been in force since the issue the perspective of a single market and in of Decree Law No 457 of 30 December order to permit the realisation of its objec- 1997, converted into Law No 30 of tives, that freedom precludes the appli- 27 February 1998, 7both for vessels regis- cation of any national legislation which has tered in Italy and for those registered in the effect of making the provision of
4 — Commission v France, cited above, paragraph 17. 1 — Original language: German. 5 — GURI (Official Gazette of the Italian Republic) No 52 of 2 —OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1. 23 February 1963. 3 — Case C-381/93 Commission v France |1994| ECR I-5145, 6 — GURI No 190 of 14 August 1991. paragraph 13. 7 — GURI No 49 of 28 February 1998.
I - 1739
OPINION OF MR ALBER — CASE C-295/00
other Member States in so far as they carry been made. Furthermore, according to out maritime transport between Italian settled case-law, any remedy to the failure ports. to comply with an obligation after the time-limit prescribed in the reasoned opinion has expired, fixed in this case at 14 February 1999, does not affect the question whether the action is justified. The subject-matter of the case at issue is established by the reasoned opinion. Even when the default has been remedied after 4. On 1 August 2000, after the adminis- the time-limit prescribed by the second trative procedure was duly completed, the paragraph of Article 226 EC has expired, Commission brought an action against the there is still an interest in pursuing the Italian Republic seeking a declaration that, action in order to establish the basis of by maintaining in force a tax payable by liability which a Member State may incur passengers disembarking or embarking in as a result of its default towards other the ports of Genoa, Naples and Trieste Member States, the Community or private where those passengers arrive from, or are parties. 8 travelling to, ports in another Member State or a third country, whereas no such tax is levied in the case of carriage between two ports located on Italian territory, the Italian Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86. Fur- thermore, it asked that the Italian Republic be ordered to pay the costs. 7. Italy does not dispute the failure to comply. Consequently the Court should find in favour of the Commission.
5. In its defence, lodged on 20 October 2000, the Italian Republic did not dispute its failure to comply with the Treaty. It pointed out that the necessary amendment to Italian law would be included in the finance bill for 2001, which should be 8. The Commission also requested that approved during the course of 2000. Italy be ordered to pay the costs. In accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for.
6. The Court has not yet been informed 8 — Case C-365/97 Commission v Italy [1999] ECR I-7773, paragraph 45; Case C-361/88 Commission v Germany that the amendment to the legislation has [1991] ECR I-2567, paragraph 31.
I - 1740
COMMISSION v ITALY
Conclusion
9. In the light of the reasons set out above, I propose that the Court should give the following reply:
(1) By maintaining in force a tax payable by passengers disembarking or embarking in the ports of Genoa, Naples and Trieste where those passengers arrive from, or are travelling to, ports in another Member State or a third country, whereas no such tax is levied in the case of carriage between two ports located on Italian territory, the Italian Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86.
(2) The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
I - 1741