Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
Celex Number62001CJ0388
ECLIECLI:EU:C:2003:30
Date16 January 2003
Docket NumberC-388/01
Writing for the CourtCunha Rodrigues
CourtCourt of Justice (European Union)
Procedure TypeRecurso por incumplimiento – fundado
Arrêt de la Cour
Case C-388/01


Commission of the European Communities
v
Italian Republic


«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom to provide services – Non-discrimination – Articles 12 EC and 49 EC – Admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments – Preferential rates granted by local or decentralised State authorities)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 10 October 2002
I - 0000
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 16 January 2003
I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality – Admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments – Advantageous rates granted by local or decentralised State authorities only in favour of nationals and persons resident within the territory of those authorities who are aged over 60 or 65 years – Not permissible – Whether justifiable – No justification

(Arts 12 and 49 EC)
By allowing advantageous rates for admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments, granted by local or decentralised State authorities only in favour of nationals and persons resident within the territory of those authorities running the cultural sites in question who are aged over 60 or 65 years, and by excluding from such advantages tourists who are nationals of other Member States and non-residents who fulfil the same objective age requirements, a Member States fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 EC and 49 EC.Such rules are prohibited by the above provisions and cannot be justified either by economic considerations relating to the costs involved in running cultural sites or on grounds of cohesion of the tax system, since there is no direct link between any taxation and the application of preferential rates for admission to the sites concerned.see paras 12, 19-25, 28, operative part



JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)
16 January 2003 (1)


((Failure to fulfil obligations – Free movement of services – Non-discrimination – Articles 12 EC and 49 EC – Admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments – Preferential rates granted by local or decentralised State authorities))

In Case C-388/01, Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Patakia and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Italian Republic, represented by U. Leanza, acting as Agent, and M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by allowing discriminatory, advantageous rates for admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments, granted by local or decentralised State authorities only in favour of Italian nationals and persons resident within the territory of those authorities running the cultural sites in question, who are aged over 60 or 65 years, and by excluding from such advantages tourists who are nationals of other Member States and non-residents who fulfil the same objective age requirements, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 EC and 49 EC,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,



composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl,
Registrar: R. Grass,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 October 2002,

gives the following



Judgment

1
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 8 October 2001, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by allowing discriminatory, advantageous rates for admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments, granted by local or decentralised State authorities only in favour of Italian nationals and persons resident within the territory of those authorities running the cultural sites in question, who are aged over 60 or 65 years, and by excluding from such advantages tourists who are nationals of other Member States and non-residents who fulfil the same objective age requirements, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 EC and 49 EC.
National legislation
2
Article 1(1) of Decree No 507 of the Ministry of Cultural Assets and Natural Sites of 11 December 1997, entitled Regulation introducing the ticket for admission to monuments, museums, galleries, archaeological digs, parks and gardens classified as national monuments (GURI No 35 of 12 February...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
33 cases
  • Diana Elisabeth Lindman.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 10 April 2003
    ...it refrained from explicitly characterising the measures at issue as discriminatory. (28) 72. In fact, only recently in its judgment in Case C-388/01, the Court confirmed that ─ at least where they provide for a based on nationality ─ discriminatory measures are compatible with Community la......
  • Gemeinsamer Betriebsrat EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH contra EurothermenResort Bad Schallerbach GmbH.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 25 July 2018
    ...es de lamentar que el Tribunal de Justicia formulase una interpretación opuesta en su sentencia de 16 de enero de 2003, Comisión/Italia (C‑388/01, EU:C:2003:30), al considerar directamente discriminatorias por razón de la nacionalidad diversas normativas, adoptadas por entidades territorial......
  • Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri v Regione Sardegna.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 2 July 2009
    ...de 1998, Bickel y Franz (C‑274/96, Rec. p. I‑7637), apartado 15 en relación con el apartado 4, y de 16 de enero de 2003, Comisión/Italia (C‑388/01, Rec. p. I‑721), apartado 12. 21 – Habida cuenta de que las prestaciones de servicios de que se trata no son servicios de transporte, el artícul......
  • Office national de l'emploi v Ioannis Ioannidis.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 9 June 2005
    ...– Entre otras, sentencias de 23 de mayo de 1996, O'Flynn (C‑237/94, Rec. p. I‑2617), apartado 18; de 16 de enero de 2003, Comisión/Italia (C‑388/01, Rec. p. I‑721), apartados 13 y 14; y Collins, ya referida, apartado 65. CONCLUSIONS DE L’AVOCAT GÉNÉRAL M. DÁMASO Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer présenté......
  • Get Started for Free
4 books & journal articles
  • La libre prestación de servicios y la jurisprudencia comunitaria en materia fiscal
    • European Union
    • Libertades comunitarias y derecho tributario, Monográfico revista Nueva Fiscalidad, 2023 Estudios
    • 11 October 2023
    ...del sistema iscal en cuestión ni por la eicacia de los controles iscales . Conforme a la Sentencia de 16 de enero de 2003, Comisión/Italia (C-388/01, Rec._p._I-721) (véanse los puntos 12, 19-25, 28 y fallo), un Estado miembro incumple las obligaciones que le incumben en virtud de los artícu......
  • Determinanti giuridico – europee del diritto tributario nazionale
    • European Union
    • Estudios Tributarios Europeos No. 1/2022, January 2022
    • 1 January 2022
    ...(Hrsg.), Recht der Europäischen Union in 2 vol., art 63, punti 99 e segg, in pubblicazione nel 2014; 56. CdGUE del 16.1.03, C-388/01, punto 13 e segg., Musei Italiani; CdGUE dell’8.5.90, C-175/88 punto 13 – 57. Espressamente al riguardo Thömmes, Verbote der Diskriminierung von Steuerausländ......
  • El Tahur de Luxemburgo. La jurisprudencia reciente del Tribunal de Justicia sobre juegos y apuestas
    • European Union
    • Revista Española de Derecho Europeo No. 26, April 2008
    • 1 April 2008
    ...sentido, las sentencias de 6 de junio de 2000, Verkooijen, C-35/98, Rec. pg. I-4071, apartado 48, y de 16 de enero de 2003, Comisión/Italia, C-388/01, Rec. pg. I-721, apartado 22) . De ello se deduce que no cabe acoger ninguna de las razones imperiosas de interés general invocadas por el Go......
  • Latest developments in 2019
    • European Union
    • Country report. Non-discrimination: Norway 2020
    • 14 October 2020
    ...discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, (cfr. for example European Court of Justice, judgment of 6 January 2003, Commission v. Italy , C-388/01). The tribunal all thereby concluded that the two fishermen from Poland had been discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity. This case highl......