EU & Human Rights

Commission v Italy (Freedom to provide services)

[2000] EUECJ C35898Court of Justice of the European Union (including the General Court)2000

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All EU & Human Rights cases →

Get the AI brief for this case

Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Provision of cleansing, disinfection, disinfestation, rodent-control and sanitation services - Undertakings established in other Member States - Obligation to register)

Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Traversa and M. Patakia, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. G�mez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

Italian Republic , represented by Professor U. Leanza, Head of the Legal Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by O. Fiumara, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Ad�la�de

defendant, APPLICATION for a declaration that, by making the provision of cleansing, disinfection, disinfestation, rodent-control and sanitation services by operators established in other Member States subject to registration in the registers referredto in Article 1 of Italian Law No 82 of 25 January 1994, in accordance with Articles 1 and 6 of that Law, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC), THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm, Judges, Advocate General: P. L�ger, Registrar: R. Grass,

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Full judgment transcript

BAILII · Verbatim mirror

Failure to comply with that provision results in imposition of the penalties set out in Article 6 of Law No 82/94, entitled 'Penalties, paragraphs (2) to (5) of which provide:

'2. In the case where the cleansing undertaking carries out the activities covered by this Law without being registered in the commercial register or the provincial register of small businesses, or if it carries out those activities despite suspension of its registration or after its registration has been annulled, the owner of the individual undertaking, the agent with control over the undertaking, one of its branches or one of its seats, all of the partners in the case of a partnership, the partners in the case of a limited partnership or a limited partnership with share capital, or the board members in all other types of company, including cooperatives, shall be liable to a prison term of up to six months or to a fine of between ITL 200 000 and ITL 1 million.

3. If the cleansing undertaking entrusts the performance of the activities covered by this Law to undertakings which are in a situation which could give rise to the penalties referred to in paragraph (2), the owner of the individual undertaking, the agent with control over the undertaking, one of its branches or one of its seats, all of the partners in the case of a partnership, the partners in the case of a limited partnership or a limited partnership with share capital, or the board members in all other types of company, including cooperatives, shall be liable to a prison term of up to six months or to a fine of between ITL 200 000 and ITL 1 million.

4. Any person concluding contracts relating to the performance of the activities covered by this Law with cleansing undertakings which are not registered in the commercial register or the provincial register of small businesses, which have been struck off those registers or whose registration has been suspended, or who, in any event, pays for the services of such undertakings, shall be liable to an administrative fine of between ITL 1 million and ITL 2 million. In the case where such contracts are concluded by public undertakings or public bodies, the latter shall be liable to an administrative fine of between ITL 10 million and ITL 50 million.

5. Contracts concluded with cleansing undertakings which are not registered in the commercial register or the provincial register of small businesses, or whichhave been struck off those registers or whose registration has been suspended, shall be null and void.

Under Article 8 of Law No 580 of 29 December 1993 establishing a register of undertakings (GURI No 7 of 11 January 1994, ordinary supplement No 6, hereinafter 'Law No 580/93), the commercial register was incorporated in the new register of undertakings after a three-year period running from the entry into force of that Law. Further, pursuant to Article 8, small businesses registered in the registers provided for by Law No 443 of 8 August 1985 are also registered in a special section of the register of undertakings.

Under Article 1(2) of Law No 82/94 and Article 18 of Law No 580/93, registration in the register of undertakings involves payment of an 'annual charge.

Pre-litigation procedure

By letter of 3 April 1995, the Commission indicated to the Italian Government why it considered that Articles 1 and 6 of Law No 82/94 were contrary to Article 59 of the Treaty and put it on formal notice to submit to it its observations within two months of receiving that letter.

Since it received no reply, the Commission delivered a reasoned opinion to the Italian Government on 12 March 1996, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty, calling on it to adopt the necessary measures of compliance within two months of notification.

In the absence of any measures by the Italian Government to comply with that opinion, the Commission brought the present action.

Substance

At the outset, the Commission notes that, under Article 1 of Law No 82/94 in conjunction with Article 8 of Law No 580/93, all cleansing undertakings, irrespective of their form, are required to register in the new register of undertakings.

The Commission claims that the obligation to register in the register of undertakings and the severe penalties provided for in the event of non-compliance with that obligation are in clear infringement of Article 59 of the Treaty. By imposing penalties such as prison sentences and fines of up to ITL 50 million for non-compliance with Article 1 of Law No 82/94, Article 6 thereof makes registration in the register of undertakings an essential precondition for carrying out cleansing activities in Italy. Inasmuch as that obligation applies in equal measure to undertakings established in a Member State other than the Italian Republic, itprevents the free provision of services or, at the very least, constitutes a barrier to such provision.

The Commission takes the view that Law No 82/94 also introduces covert discrimination against undertakings established in the other Member States. This condition of registration has the practical effect of dissuading such undertakings from performing in Italy the cleansing activities covered by that Law. According to the Commission, it is unlikely that an undertaking from another Member State would incur the administrative obligations involved in registration in the registers of undertakings, together with the cost of the 'annual charge for inscription, solely in order to provide services on a more or less occasional and ad hoc basis, and in any event in a temporary and non-regular manner.

It is accepted, and is not disputed by the Italian Government, that, by virtue of the general nature of its terms, Law No 82/94 is intended to apply to every provider of services, whether or not established in Italy, and irrespective of whether or not the provider offers its services in Italy on an occasional or regular basis. More particularly, it must be pointed out that this legislation does not exclude from its scope a provider of services who is established in a Member State other than the Italian Republic and who, under the legislation of its Member State of establishment, already satisfies formal requirements equivalent to those under the Italian Law.

It has consistently been held that such national provisions do not comply with the requirements of Article 59 of the Treaty (see, in particular, the judgment of 23 November 1999 in Joined Cases C-369/96 and C-376/96 Arblade and Others [1999] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 33 to 35).

The Italian Government does, however, point out that national provisions are at present being drafted which will resolve the problems raised by the Commission. It adds that, Law No 82/94 as presently in force notwithstanding, cleansing undertakings established in other Member States may operate and do in fact operate in Italy without the need for them to be entered in the register of undertakings.

Suffice it to hold in this regard that even if, in practice, the authorities of a Member State do not apply to nationals of other Member States the national provisions which are at variance with Community law, that fact is not such as to remove the breach of Community law which those provisions represent.

The Court has consistently held that the incompatibility of national legislation with Community provisions, even provisions which are directly applicable, can be finally remedied only by means of national provisions of a binding nature which have the same legal force as those which must be amended. Mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given theappropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of obligations under the Treaty (see, in particular, Case C-197/96 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-1489, paragraph 14).

It must accordingly be held that, by making the provision of cleansing, disinfection, disinfestation, rodent-control and sanitation services by operators established in other Member States subject to registration in the registers referred to in Article 1 of Law No 82/94, in accordance with Articles 1 and 6 of that Law, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the Treaty.

Costs

19. Under 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 in the successful party's pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Italian Republic has been unsuccessful, the Italian Republic must be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

hereby:

1. Declares that, by making the provision of cleansing, disinfection, disinfestation, rodent-control and sanitation services by operators established in other Member States subject to registration in the registers referred to in Article 1 of Italian Law No 82 of 25 January 1994, in accordance with Articles 1 and 6 of that Law, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC);

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

EdwardKapteyn Ragnemalm

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 March 2000.

R. Grass D.A.O. Edward

Registrar President of the Fourth Chamber

1: Language of the case: Italian.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More EU & Human Rights cases

ABDULLAH KILIC v. TURKIYE - 43979/17 (Judgment : Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed : Second Section) French Text

[2023] ECHR 92

RADOI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - 31590/15 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Fourth Section Committee)

[2023] ECHR 11

DUGAN v. TURKIYE - 84543/17 (Judgment : Art 5 § 1 - Deprivation of liberty - Unjustified short-term detention at a police station of applicant, a transgender person, for disrupting traffic : Second Section)

[2023] ECHR 113

BABIN v. UKRAINE - 9245/19 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Fifth Section Committee)

[2023] ECHR 138

MACATE v LITHUANIA - 61435/19 (Judgment : Freedom of expression - Temporary suspension of children's fairy tale book depicting same-sex relationships and its subsequent labelling as harmful to children under the age of 14 : Grand Chamber)

[2023] ECHR 69

NIKITIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 74076/16 (Judgment : Article 5 - Right to liberty and security : Third Section Committee)

[2023] ECHR 22

Common Room

Discussion

0 comments · About the Common Room →

No comments yet — start the discussion.

Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.