C-276/98 Commission v Portugal

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

8 March 2001 »

In Case C-276/98,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by T. Figueira and E. Traversa, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Portuguese Republic, represented by L. Fernandes, Â. Seiça Neves and T. Lemos, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by maintaining in force or by introducing legislative provisions applying a reduced rate of value added tax of 5% to the importation and supply of certain goods and to certain services, set out in List I annexed to the Portuguese VAT Code, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 and 28(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/ EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States

* Language of the case: Portuguese.

relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 92/77/ EEC of 19 October 1992 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT rates) (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 1),

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of: V. Skouris, President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: EG. Jacobs, Registrar: H.A. Rühi, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 3 October 2000, at which the Commission was represented by T. Figueira and the Portuguese Republic by V. Guimarães, acting as Agent,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 23 November 2000, gives the following

Judgment

Legal context and the dispute

1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 20 July 1998, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC) for a declaration that, by maintaining in force or by introducing legislative provisions applying a reduced rate of value added tax ('VAT') of 5% to the importation and supply of certain goods and to certain services, set out in List I annexed to the Portuguese VAT Code, the Portuguese Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 and 28(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT rates) (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 1) ('the Sixth Directive').

The Community legislation

2The Sixth Directive provides that Member States may not fix a rate of VAT lower than a given percentage of the taxable amount. To that end, Article 12(3) provides:

'3. (a) From 1 January 1993 Member States shall apply a standard rate which, until 31 December 1996, may not be less than 15%.

Member States may also apply either one or two reduced rates. The reduced rates may not be less than 5% and shall only apply to supplies of the categories of goods and services specified in Annex H.'

3By Council Directive 96/95/EC of 20 December 1996 amending, with regard to the level of the standard rate of value added tax, Directive 77/388'(OJ 1996 L 338, p. 89), Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive was replaced by the following:

'The standard rate of value added tax shall be fixed by each Member State as a percentage of the taxable amount and shall be the same for the supply of goods and for the supply of services. From 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1998, this percentage may not be less than 15%.

Member States may also apply either one or two reduced rates. These rates shall be fixed as a percentage of the taxable amount which may not be less than 5% and shall apply only to supplies of the categories of goods and services specified in Annex H.'

4Article 28(2) of the Sixth Directive provides:

'Notwithstanding Article 12(3), the following provisions shall apply during the transitional period referred to in Article 28 1.

(d) Member States which at 1 January 1991 applied a reduced rate to restaurant services, children's clothing, children's footwear and housing, may continue to apply such a rate to such supplies.

(e) Member States which at 1 January 1991 applied a reduced rate to supplies of goods and services other than those specified in Annex H may apply the reduced rate or one of the two reduced rates provided for in Article 12(3) to such supplies, provided that the rate is not lower than 12%.

...'

5Under Article 2 of the Sixth Directive:

'The following shall be subject to value added tax:

1. the supply of goods or services effected for consideration within the territory of the country by a taxable person acting as such;

2. the importation of goods.'

6Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, which concerns the capacity of 'bodies governed by public law' as 'taxable persons', provides:

'States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law shall not be considered taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities, even where they collect dues, fees, contributions or payments in connection with these activities or transactions.

However, when they engage in such activities or transactions, they shall be considered taxable persons in respect of these activities or transactions where treatment as non-taxable persons would lead to significant distortions of competition.

In any case, these bodies shall be considered taxable persons in relation to the activities listed in Annex D, provided they are not carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible.

Member States may consider activities of these bodies which are exempt under Article 13 or 28 as activities which they engage in as public authorities.'

National legislation

7The Portuguese VAT Code, as approved by Decree-Law No 394-B/84 of 26 December 1984 and amended by Law No 2/92 of 9 March 1992 and Law No 39-B/94 of 27 December 1994 ('the Code'), provides in Article 18(l)(a):

'The imports, transfers of goods, and supplies of services mentioned in List I, annexed to this statute are subject to a rate of 5%.'

8List I of the Portuguese VAT Code, setting out the goods and services subject to a reduced rate of taxation of 5%, includes the following:

'1.8 Ordinary wine.

2.11 Appliances, machinery and other equipment designed exclusively or mainly for the following purposes:

(a) Collection and use of solar energy, wind energy, or geothermal energy;

(b) Collection and use of other forms of alternative energy;

(c) Production of energy by the incineration or modification of detritus, garbage, and other waste;

(d) Exploration of and search for oil and/or development of the discovery of oil and natural gas;

(e) Avoidance or reduction, by measuring and controls, of any form of pollution. 2.19 Tolls charged on passage by road of the Tagus Bridge in Lisbon.

3.8 Agricultural tools and utensils, mobile silos, garden tractors, power pumps, electric pumps, tractors, and other machinery and equipment designed exclusively or mainly for the purpose of agriculture, stockrearing, or forestry.'

9Concerning tolls charged on passage of the Tagus Bridge in Lisbon, by Law No 2/92 the Portuguese Government repealed the reduced rate of 8% in force on 1 January 1991 and introduced, as from that latter date, a normal rate for those tolls. By point 2.19 of Law No 39-B/94, the Portuguese Government re established a new reduced rate applicable to those tolls.

10None of the goods or services mentioned in paragraph 8 of this judgment appears on the list in Annex H to the Sixth Directive.

The pre-litigation procedure

11By a letter of formal notice of 10 April 1996, the Commission informed the Portuguese Government that, in its view, Article 18(1)(a) of the Code was contrary to Articles 12 and 28(2) of the Sixth Directive inasmuch as that national provision fixed a rate of 5% for certain transactions that were not specified in Annex H to the Sixth Directive.

12By letters of 2 July and 20 November 1996, the Portuguese authorities informed the Commission of their intention to introduce a new reduced rate of 12%, which had not hitherto existed in Portugal, particularly for transactions not specified in Annex H to the Sixth Directive, with a view to raising the tax on those transactions progressively to the normal rate of 17% in force in Portugal.

13The Portuguese authorities nevertheless argued that a rate of 12% might be difficult to implement given the social and economic importance of those goods and services and the absence of a stable governing majority in Parliament.

14Being dissatisfied with the observations of the Portuguese Government, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty to the Portuguese Republic on 10 June 1997, calling on it to take the necessary measures to comply with that opinion within two months from its notification. That reasoned opinion referred to the reduced VAT rate of 5% applicable, pursuant to Article 18(1)(a) of the Code, to transactions concerning the goods and services referred to in points 1.8, 2.11, 2.19 and 3.8 of List I annexed to the Code.

15By letter of 10 March 1998, the Portuguese authorities assured the Commission of the Government's intention to seek, in the next budgetary law, the taxation of transactions concerning those goods and services not on the list in Annex H to the Sixth Directive at a rate of 12%, although the political situation was likely to make such an amendment of the applicable rate difficult.

The action

16In its action, the Commission makes complaint against the Portuguese Republic for having, contrary to Articles 12 and 28(2) of the Sixth Directive, maintained a reduced VAT rate of 5% applicable to transactions concerning the goods listed in points 1.8, 2.11 and 3.8 of List I annexed to the Code, respectively covering wines, machines and equipment designed for research into alternative forms of energy, and agricultural tools and utensils, and for having introduced a reduced rate of 5% on the service referred to in point 2.19 of that list, concerning the passage of the toll bridge over the Tagus in Lisbon.

The reduced rate of VAT applicable to the goods in question

17Since, on 1 January 1991, the Portuguese Republic applied a reduced rate to transactions concerning the goods specified in points 1,8, 2.11 and 3.8 of List I annexed to the Code, it is entitled to apply a reduced rate of VAT to those transactions by virtue of Articles 12(3)(a) and 28(2) of the Sixth Directive. However, as the Commission has rightly pointed out, the effect of that latter provision is that that reduced rate may not be lower than 12%.

18The Portuguese Government admits that the internal provisions referred to above are contrary to the Sixth Directive in so far as they fix a reduced rate of 5% rather than 12%. However, it argues that, in the pre-litigation procedure, it expressly stated its intention to raise the rate in question to 12% and that it also referred to the existence of internal political questions to be resolved, particularly in the wine sector. It therefore suggests that the Court should stay the proceedings until the adoption of the law raising the rate of VAT on transactions concerning the goods in question from 5 to 12%.

19Notwithstanding the allegations of the Portuguese Government, the situation requires the Court not to suspend the proceedings but to uphold the Commission's action as regards the reduced rate of VAT applicable to transactions concerning those goods.

20It is settled case-law that the Court cannot in any event take account of measures adopted by a Member State after the commencement of an action for failure to fulfil its obligations in order to comply with those obligations (Case C-71/97 Commission v Spain [1998] ECR I-5991, paragraph 18) and that, moreover, a Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or circumstances in its own legal order to justify failure to implement a directive within the prescribed period (Case C-274/98 Commission v Spain [2000] ECR 1-2823, paragraph 19).

21It must therefore be held that, by maintaining in force a reduced VAT rate of 5% applicable to transactions concerning the goods listed in points 1.8, 2.11 and 3.8 of List I annexed to the Code, respectively covering wines, machines and equipment designed for research into alternative forms of energy, and agricultural tools and utensils, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 and 28(2) of the Sixth Directive.

The tolls on passage of the bridge over the Tagus

22The Commission accuses the Portuguese Republic of infringing Articles 12(3) and 28(2) of the Sixth Directive by taxing tolls for crossing the toll bridge over the Tagus in Lisbon at a reduced VAT rate of 5% rather than the normal rate in Portugal of 17%.

23However, the Commission has not brought before the Court sufficient evidence for it to establish the existence of the alleged failure to fulfil obligations. Indeed, it has not been established that the service in question was subject to VAT.

24In that respect, it should be noted that, under Article 2, point 1, of the Sixth Directive, only supplies of services by a taxable person acting as such are subject to VAT.

25Under Article 4(5) of the same directive, bodies governed by public law are not to be considered taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities, even where they are acting for consideration. As the Court has held on numerous occasions, it is clear from that provision, when examined in the light of the aims of the directive, that two conditions must be cumulatively fulfilled in order for the exemption to apply: the activities must be carried out by a body governed by public law and they must be carried out by that body acting as a public authority (see, in particular, Case C-260/98 Commission v Greece [2000] ECR I-6537, paragraph 34; C-276/97 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-6251, paragraph 39; Case C-358/97 Commission v Ireland [2000] ECR I-6301, paragraph 37; Case C-359/97 Commission v United Kingdom [2000] ECR I-6355, paragraph 49; and Case C-408/97 Commission v Netherlands [2000] ECR I-6417, paragraph 34).

26Here, the Commission has not challenged the fact that, as the Portuguese Government stated at the hearing, it is a body governed by public law, acting as a public authority, that places the toll bridge over the Tagus in Lisbon at the disposal of its users.

27It must therefore be held that, since the conditions laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive have been met in this case, the services supplied by the body governed by public law are not taxable. In this context, the Commission is wrong to claim that that provision offers only an option to derogate from the general principle laid down by Article 2, point 1, of the Sixth Directive. It is clear from the wording of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive that Member States are not entitled to regard bodies governed by public law as taxable persons in respect of an activity performed in the capacity of a public authority not appearing, as in this case, in Annex D to the Sixth Directive and not fulfilling the conditions specified in the second subparagraph of Article 4(5). Therefore, they may not, by virtue of Article 2, point 1, of the Sixth Directive, tax the transactions carried out by those bodies (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 231/87 and 129/88 Officio Distrettuale delle Imposte Dirette di Fiorenzuola d'Arda v Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino and Others [1989] ECR 3233, paragraph 33).

28It is true that, if exemption of the activity in question from VAT would lead to significant distortions of competition within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, the provision of access to that bridge on payment of a toll would be taxable by virtue of that same provision. In this case, however, the Commission has not argued the existence of such distortions at any time during the pre-Iitigation procedure.

29Therefore, contrary to what the Commission claims, the Portuguese Republic has not, by introducing or maintaining in force the reduced rate of VAT on tolls paid for crossing the bridge over the Tagus, infringed Articles 12(3) and 28(2) of the Sixth Directive. In the context of the present action, it is not necessary to reply to the question whether Portugal has infringed other provisions of that directive. During the pre-litigation procedure, the Commission did not make any complaint based on the infringement of provisions other than those of Articles 12(3) and 28(2) of the Sixth Directive, so that such an infringement does not constitute the subject-matter of the dispute.

30The Commission's action must therefore be dismissed in so far as it concerns tolls for crossing the bridge over the Tagus in Lisbon.

Costs

Costs

31Under 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 Portuguese Republic has been essentially unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

hereby:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force a reduced rate of value added tax of 5% applicable to transactions concerning the goods listed in points 1.8, 2.11 and 3.8 of List I annexed to the Portuguese VAT Code, respectively covering wines, machines and equipment designed for research into alternative forms of energy, and agricultural tools and utensils, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 and 28(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT rates);

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Skouris Puissochet Schintgen

Macken Colneric

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 8 March 2001.

R. Grass

C. Gulmann

Registrar President of the Sixth Chamber

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL JACOBS delivered on 23 November 2000 1

1In these proceedings brought pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC), the Commission seeks a declaration that by introducing or maintaining in force a reduced rate of 5% applicable to the products listed in points 1.8, 2.11, 2.19 and 3.8 of List I annexed to the Portuguese VAT Code, including respectively wine, machinery and equipment for alternative energy research, tolls charged on passage of the road bridge over the Tagus and, finally, agricultural tools and equipment, the Portuguese Republic has infringed Articles 12 and 28(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive (hereinafter 'the Sixth Directive') as amended by Directive 92/77. 3 The relevant legislative provisions

Community provisions

2Under Article 2 of the Sixth Directive, a supply of goods or services effected for consideration by a taxable person acting as such is to be subject to VAT. According to Article 4(1), a taxable person is a person who carries out an economic activity, whatever the purpose or result of that activity. Economic activities include, under Article 4(2), the exploitation of tangible or intangible property for the purpose of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis. The first subparagraph of Article 6(1) defines a supply of services as 'any transaction which does not constitute a supply of goods'.

3Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive, as amended by Directive 92/77, lays down the general rule that:

'From 1 January 1993 Member States shall apply a standard rate which, until 31 December 1996, may not be less than 15%. 4

Member States may also apply either one or two reduced rates. The reduced rates may not be less than 5% and shall only apply to supplies of the categories of goods and services specified in Annex H.'

4By way of exception, Article 28(2) of the Sixth Directive, again as amended by Directive 92/77, provides that:

'Notwithstanding Article 12(3), the following provisions shall apply during the transitional period referred to in Article 28 1.

(e) Member States which at 1 January 1991 applied a reduced rate to supplies of goods and services other than those specified in Annex H may apply the reduced rate or one of the two reduced rates provided for in Article 12(3) to such supplies, provided that the rate is not lower than 12%.'

5Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive contains rules on goods and services provided by public authorities. It reads as follows:

'States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law shall not be considered taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities, even where they collect dues, fees, contributions or payments in connection with these activities or transactions. However, when they engage in such activities or transactions, they shall be considered taxable persons in respect of these activities or transactions where treatment as non-taxable persons would lead to significant distortions of competition.

In any case, these bodies shall be considered taxable persons in relation to the activities listed in Annex D, provided they are not carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible.

Member States may consider activities of these bodies which are exempt under Article 13 or 28 as activities which they engage in as public authorities.'

National provisions

6Under Article 18(1) of the Portuguese VAT Code, as approved by Decree No 394- B/84 of 26 December 1984 and amended by Law No 2/92 of 9 March 1992 and Law No 39-B/94 of 27 December 1994, the 'imports, transfers of goods, and supplies of services mentioned in List I, annexed to this legislative text, are subject to a VAT of 5%'.

7List I of the Portuguese VAT Code includes the following items of relevance for these proceedings:

'1.8 Regular wine.

2.11 Appliances, machinery and other equipment designed exclusively or mainly for the following purposes:

(a) Collection and use of solar energy, wind energy, or geothermal energy;

(b) Collection and use of other forms of alternative energy;

(c) Production of energy by the incinera tion or modification of detritus, gar bage, and other waste;

(d) Exploration of and search for oil and/ or development of the discovery of oil and natural gas;

(e) Avoidance or reduction, by measuring and controls, of any form of pollution.

2.19 Tolls charged on passage of the Tagus Bridge in Lisbon.

3.8 Agricultural tools and utensils, mobile silos, garden tractors, power pumps, electric pumps, tractors, and other machinery and equipment designed exclusively or mainly for the purpose of agriculture, stockrearing, or forestry.'

8None of the goods or services listed in points 1.8, 2.11, 2.19, or 3.8 fall within the transactions specified in Annex H of the Sixth Directive.

Procedure

9Taking the view that points 1.8, 2.11, 2.19 and 3.8 of List I, combined with Article 18(1) of the Portuguese VAT Code, were contrary to the Sixth Directive, the Commission sent, on 10 April 1996, a letter of formal notice in which it invited the Portuguese Government to present its observations within a period of two months. The Portuguese Government replied by two letters dated 2 July 1996 and 20 November 1996. In those letters, it informed the Commission of its plans to raise, during the budgetary year of 1997, the rate of VAT to 12% for those transactions which fell outside Annex H of the Sixth Directive and which were at that time subject to a rate of 5%. However, it mentioned that those plans might be difficult to implement owing to the great economic significance for Portuguese society of the rate of VAT and the absence of a stable majority in the Portuguese parliament.

10Having found the Portuguese replies unsatisfactory, the Commission issued, on 10 June 1997, a reasoned opinion pursuant to Article 169(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 226(1) EC) calling on Portugal to take the necessary measures to comply within a period of two months. The Portuguese Government replied to that opinion by two letters dated 14 August 1997 and 10 March 1998. In its replies, the Portuguese Government assured the Commission of its intention to seek to increase the rate of VAT in the next budgetary law, but it added that the political situation might impede the adoption of that measure and that the VAT rate applicable to wine was in fact likely to remain unchanged.

11In the light of those replies, the Commission lodged this application with the Court on 20 July 1998.

Analysis

12There are two aspects of the Commission's claim, which must be examined separately: the rate of VAT applied to the goods mentioned in points 1.8, 2.11 and 3.8 of List I, and the rate of VAT on the bridge toll mentioned in point 2.19 of List I.

The rate of VAT on certain goods

13The Commission points out that at 1 January 1991 the transactions listed in points 1.8, 2.11, and 3.8 were subject to a reduced rate of VAT. Portugal is therefore entitled to apply a reduced rate of VAT to those transactions under Article 12(3)(a) and Article 28(2) of the Sixth Directive. However, it follows from those provisions that the reduced rate may not be less than 12%. By applying a rate of only 5%, Portugal has acted contrary to Article 12(3)(a) and Article 28(2) of the Sixth Directive and failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty.

14The Portuguese Government does not deny that Article 18 of the VAT Code is contrary to the Sixth Directive in so far as it applies a VAT rate of 5% rather than 12% to the transactions in points 1.8, 2.11 and 3.8 of List I. However, it states that it will soon take steps to resolve the problem and that its failure to comply with the Directive is due to the absence of a parliamentary majority in favour of raising the rate of VAT as required by the Sixth Directive.

15It is settled case-law that the Court of Justice cannot in infringement proceedings take into account action taken by a Member State after the expiry of the time-limit laid down in the reasoned opinion, and that a Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or circumstances related to its own internal legal order as an excuse for its failure to implement a directive within the prescribed time-limit. 6

16The Commission's claim should therefore be upheld in relation to points 1.8, 2.11 and 3.8 of List I.

The rate of VAT on the toll charged on passage of the Tagus Bridge

17The lawfulness of the rate of VAT applied to the Tagus Bridge toll falls to be considered in the light of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive and the recent judgments of the Court of Justice in a group of cases concerning that provision. 7

18In those cases, the Court of Justice held that the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) applies to tolls charged on the use of infrastructure installations such as roads and bridges if two conditions are fulfilled. First, the provision of the installation must be an activity carried out by a body governed by public law. Secondly, the body must be acting as a public authority when providing that activity. As regards the first condition, the Court held that 'an activity carried on by a private individual is not excluded from the scope of VAT merely because it consists in the performance of acts falling within the prerogatives of the public authority'. 9 As regards the second condition, the Court held that activities pursued as public authorities are those which are 'engaged in by bodies governed by public law under the special legal regime which is applicable to them and do not include activities pursued by them under the same legal conditions as those that apply to private traders'.

19At the hearing, the Commission and the Portuguese Government appeared to accept that the body which is responsible for providing access to the Tagus Bridge is a body subject to public law acting in this context as a public authority within the meaning of Article 4(5), but to consider that that provision was an optional exception to the general principle that all supplies of goods and services are subject to VAT.

20Article 4(5) provides that the bodies to which it applies 'shall not be considered taxable persons'. Contrary to the position taken by the parties at the hearing, that wording clearly indicates that Article 4(5) is a mandatory provision rather than an optional exception. 1 Article 4(5) does not grant the Member States the freedom to choose whether to apply the normal VAT rules to the transactions covered by that provision, to apply one of the reduced rates mentioned in Article 28, or to apply any other rate of VAT. Transactions covered by Article 4(5) are not subject to VAT.

21The only exception to that rule, apart from the transactions listed in Annex D which are not in point here, is where treatment of the public authority as a non-taxable person 'would lead to significant distortions of competition'. There is however no evidence that the treatment of the body responsible for providing access to the Tagus Bridge as a non-taxable person would entail significant distortions of competition. According to the Portuguese Government's statements at the hearing, there are two road bridges over the river Tagus. The access to both of those bridges is provided by public bodies. The toll — and the rate of VAT applied to the toll — on the two bridges is the same. Neither the toll nor the rate of VAT is determined freely by the bodies responsible for providing access. The rate of VAT is determined by law; the toll is determined by the Portuguese Government in the context of a contract which grants the relevant public body a concession to handle, manage, and maintain the Tagus bridge. On the basis of those statements, the correctness of which was not contested by the Commission at the hearing, it appears that there is no significant competition between the bodies responsible for providing access to the two bridges over the Tagus in Lisbon.

22It follows, in my view, that Point 2.19 of List I, annexed to the Portuguese VAT Code, is contrary to Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive in so far as it applies a VAT rate of 5% to the tolls charged on passage of the Tagus Bridge.

23However, it is well established that, in infringement proceedings, the Court cannot find an infringement different from that in respect of which a declaration is sought. In this case, the Commission alleged in its reasoned opinion and in its application that Portugal had failed to fulfil its obligation under the Treaty by charging a lower rate of VAT than what is required by Articles 12 and 28(2) of the Sixth Directive. It did not allege a breach of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive.

24The Commission's claim should therefore, in my opinion, be rejected in relation to point 2.19 of List I.

Costs ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. The Commission has succeeded in most of its claims, and has applied for costs. I therefore consider that Portugal

25Under Article 69 of the Rules of Pro should be ordered to pay the Commission's cedure, the unsuccessful party is to be costs.

Conclusion

Conclusion

26In the light of the foregoing observations, I am of the opinion that the Court should:

(1) declare that by introducing or maintaining in force a reduced rate of 5% applicable to the products listed in points 1.8, 2.11 and 3.8 of List I annexed to the Portuguese VAT Code, including respectively wine, machinery and equipment for alternative energy research, and agricultural tools and equipment, the Portuguese Republic has infringed Articles 12 and 28(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment as amended by Council Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC;

(2) for the rest, dismiss the application;

(3) order the Portuguese Republic to bear the costs.

Notes

(1) Original language: English.

(2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

(3) Council Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT rates), OJ 1992 L 316, p. 1.

(4) In the version currently in force, Article 12(3)(a) provides that 'The standard rate of value added tax shall he fixed by each Member State as a percentage of the taxable amount and shall be the same for the supply of goods and for the supply of services. From 1 January 1999 to 31 December

(200) 0, this percentage may not be less than 15%.'

(5) See Case 291/84 Commission v Netherlands [1987] ECR

(348) 3, paragraph 15 of the judgment; Case 240/86 Commission v Greece [1988] ECR 1835, paragraph 14; and Case C-71/97 Commission v Spain [1998] ECR I-5991, paragraph 18.

(6) See, most recently, Case C-236/99 Commission v Belgium, ECR I-5657, judgment of 6 July 2000, paragraph 23.

(7) Judgments of 12 September 2000 in Case C-359/97 Commission v United Kingdom ECR I-6355, Case C-276/97 Commission v France ECR I-6251, Case C-358/97 Commission v Ireland ECR I-6301, Case C-408/97 Commission v Netherlands ECR I-6417 and Case C-260/98 Commission v Greece ECR I-6417. See also the Opinion of Advocate General Alher of 29 June 2000 in Case C-446/98 Fazienda Pública v Gâmara Municipal do Porto.

(8) Sec text at paragraph 5 above.

(9) Commission v United Kingdom, cited in note 7, paragraph

(55) of the judgment citing Case C-202/90 Ayuntamiento de Sevilla [1991] ECR I-4247, paragraph 19.

(10) Commission v United Kingdom, paragraph 50 of the judgment.

(11) See similarly the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in Joined Cases 231/87 and 129/88 Ufficio distrettuale delle imposte dirette di Fiorenzuola d'Arda and Others v Comune di Carpaneto Piacentmo and Others [1989] ECR 3233, paragraph 12.

(12) Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive.

(13) See, for example, Case 7/69 Commission v Italy [1970] ECR 111, paragraph 5 of the judgment; Case C-306/91 Commission v Italy [1993] ECR I-2133, paragraph 22.