This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 61999CC0264
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Alber delivered on 22 February 2000. # Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. # Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC - Haulage by operators established in other Member States - National rules requiring enrolment on the register of undertakings. # Case C-264/99.
Konklużjonijiet ta' l-Avukat Ġenerali - Alber - 22 ta' Frar 2000.
il-Kummissjoni tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej vs ir-Repubblika Taljana.
Nuqqas ta' Stat li jwettaq obbligu.
Kawża C-264/99.
Konklużjonijiet ta' l-Avukat Ġenerali - Alber - 22 ta' Frar 2000.
il-Kummissjoni tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej vs ir-Repubblika Taljana.
Nuqqas ta' Stat li jwettaq obbligu.
Kawża C-264/99.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2000:97
61999C0264
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Alber delivered on 22 February 2000. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC - Haulage by operators established in other Member States - National rules requiring enrolment on the register of undertakings. - Case C-264/99.
European Court reports 2000 Page I-04417
Opinion of the Advocate-General
1. By this action for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations, the Commission of the European Communities requests that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by maintaining rules requiring that Community nationals who carry on haulage activities as service providers be entered on a special register kept by the Chamber of Commerce following authorisation by the Ministry of the Interior, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12, 43 and 49 EC (ex Articles 6, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty);
(2) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
2. The Commission relies on two provisions of Law No 1442 of 14 November 1941 as they applied at the time of the pre-litigation procedure. Article 4(1) of that Law requires any haulier established in another Member State who wishes to carry on business in Italy to register on a special register kept by the Chamber of Industry and Commerce. That requirement to register is incompatible with the principle of the free movement of services. It impedes an economic operator established in a Member State other than Italy from carrying on his activities in Italy.
3. The last paragraph of Article 6 of the Law requires that companies represented by foreign nationals produce an authorisation from the Ministry of the Interior. That requirement is incompatible with the principle of freedom of establishment and infringes the principle of non-discrimination.
4. The Italian Government did not actually dispute the cause of action in its defence. It announced a statutory amendment to Article 4 of the Law. As regards Article 6, it stated that the contested provision would be repealed and not replaced.
5. It is common ground that at the point in time which is decisive in the context of actions for failure to fulfil obligations, namely the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, the cause of action still pertained. It is therefore appropriate to find against the Italian Republic and grant the application. The cost consequences are laid down in Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
Conclusion
6. I propose that the Court:
(1) declare that, by maintaining rules requiring that Community nationals who carry on haulage activities as service providers be entered on a special register kept by the Chamber of Commerce following authorisation by the Ministry of the Interior, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12, 43 and 49 EC (ex Articles 6, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty);
(2) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.