C-353/87 Commission v Italy

Judgment · Court of Justice · Italy · 2 February 1989

Failure to implement the Tenth VAT Directive on the hiring out of movable tangible property

What is the case?

Infringement proceedings brought by the Commission against Italy. The Tenth Council Directive (84/386/EEC) of 31-07-1984 amended the Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) to change the place of supply rules applicable to the hiring out of movable tangible property. Italy did not adopt the national measures needed to transpose that directive within the period prescribed, and the Commission applied to the Court for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations under the EEC Treaty.

What is the Court asked?

Whether Italy, by not adopting within the prescribed period the measures necessary to implement the Tenth VAT Directive (84/386/EEC) amending the Sixth Directive as regards the application of VAT to the hiring out of movable tangible property, had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.

The Court’s decision

The Court declared that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the measures necessary to implement Tenth Council Directive 84/386/EEC, Italy had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty, and ordered Italy to pay the costs. The grounds of the judgment are not reproduced in the published text, so the ruling is confined to the declaration of non transposition.

AI-generated and factual. Not an official document: verify against the text below.

Subject matter

Failure to fulfil obligations · VAT Directive · Implementation

Topics

Implementation

Record

Court: Court of Justice
Case number: C-353/87
ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:1989:53
Official texts: Judgment of 2 February 1989 (61987CJ0353)
Opinion of the Advocate General of 12 January 1989 (61987CC0353)
Cite as: Judgment of 2 February 1989, Commission v Italy, C-353/87, EU:C:1989:53

Judgment of 2 February 1989

Text as published by the Court on EUR-Lex, CELEX 61987CJ0353.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Grounds

2February 1989 *

In Case 353/87

Commission of the European Communities, represented by its Legal Adviser Giuliano Marenco and by Daniel Calleja, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, a member of its Legal Department, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

applicant,

Italian Republic, represented by Professor Luigi Ferrari Bravo, Head of the Department for Contentious Diplomatic Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by Franco Favara, avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the measures necessary to implement the Tenth VAT Directive the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty,

THE COURT

composed of: O. Due, President, R. Joliét, T. F. O'Higgins and F. Grévisse (Presidents of Chambers), Sir Gordon Slynn, G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, Judges,

* Language of the case: Italian.

COMMISSION v ITALY

(the grounds of the judgment are not reproduced)

hereby:

(1) Declares that by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the measures necessary to implement the Tenth Council Directive (84/386/EEC) of 31 July 1984 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, amending Directive 77/388/EEC — Application of value-added tax to the hiring out of movable tangible property — the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;

(2) Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Opinion of the Advocate General of 12 January 1989

Text as published by the Court on EUR-Lex, CELEX 61987CC0353.

Case 353/87 (Summary publication)

Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Failure to fulfil obligations — VAT Directive — Implementation)

Summary of the Judgment

— — — — Member States Obligations Implementation of directives Failure Justification — Not acceptable (EEC Treaty, Art. 169)

A Member State cannot rely on provisions, obligations and time-limits resulting from practices or situations in its internal legal Community directives.

order to justify its failure to comply with

OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

î! Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered his Opinion on 12 January 1989. " He proposed that the Court should find that the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations and order it to pay the costs.

* Original language: French