Official Journal of the European Union EN 23.8.2003 C 200/16
Secondly, reserving delegated management contracts solely to
the legal entities listed in Article 4 of the Law of 12 July 1985on the supervision of public work and its relation with thesupervision of private work, as amended, constitutes a restric-tion on the principle of the freedom to provide services. Such a
restriction cannot be justified either by Article 45, inasmuch as
the tasks entrusted are not connected, even occasionally, withthe exercise of official authority, or by Article 46, since groundsof public policy, public security or public health are not applic-able in the present case.
(1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts (OJ L 209, 24.07.1992, p. 1).
Action brought on 18 June 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg
(Case C-266/03)
(2003/C 200/28)
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 18 June 2003 by the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, represented by C. Schmidt and W. Wils, actingas Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:
1. Declare that, under the first paragraph of Article 226 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community, theGrand Duchy of Luxembourg, by individually negotiating,
concluding, ratifying, arranging for the entry into force
and refusing to renounce the bilateral agreements with theCzech and Slovak Federative Republic, Rumania andPoland concerning inland navigation, has failed to fulfilits obligations under Article 10 EC and Council Regula-
tion (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December 1991 laying
down the conditions under which non-resident carriersmay transport goods or passengers by inland waterwaywithin a Member State (
1) and Council Regulation (EC)
No 1356/96 of 8 July 1996 on common rules applicableto the transport of goods or passengers by inland
waterway between Member States with a view to estab-
lishing freedom to provide such transport services (
2).
2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
— The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has infringed the
exclusive Community competence as defined in the
ERTA case (Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971]ECR 263) by negotiating, concluding, ratifying and arran-ging for the entry into force of the bilateral agreementswith the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, Rumania
and Poland concerning inland navigation, which affect theCommunity rules adopted by the Community in CouncilRegulation (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December 1991laying down the conditions under which non-resident
carriers may transport goods or passengers by inland
waterway within a Member State. Article 7 of thoseagreements provides, subject to special authorisation, foraccess to cabotage in Luxembourg by carriers from thenon-member countries concerned.
— The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not observed its
obligations under Article 10 EC by negotiating,concluding, ratifying and arranging for the entry intoforce of the bilateral agreements in question after the
grant of a negotiating mandate by the Council to the
Commission to negotiate an agreement between the EEC,on the one hand, and Poland and the States parties to theDanube Convention (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania,Bulgaria, the former USSR, the former Yugoslavia and
Austria), on the other.
— The bilateral agreements concluded by the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg are incompatible with Council Regulation
(EC) No 1356/96 of 8 July 1996 on common rules
applicable to the transport of goods or passengers byinland waterway between Member States with a view toestablishing freedom to provide such transport services.The Polish, Rumanian, Czech and Slovak shippers andnavigation companies capable of being authorised under
the bilateral agreements in question to effect transports
between Luxembourg and the other Member States donot satisfy the conditions laid down in that regulation.
(1) OJ 1991 L 373, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1996 L 175, p. 7.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'appel of
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment of thatCourt in the civil proceedings between 1. Administrationde l'Enregistrement et des Domaines, and 2. État duGrand-Duché de Luxembourg and Vermietungsgesellschaft
Objekt Kirchberg
(Case C-269/03)
(2003/C 200/29)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel(Court of Appeal) of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,received at the Court Registry on 20 June 2003, for apreliminary ruling in the civil proceedings between 1. Adminis-
tration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines (Registration and
Land Authority), and 2. État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourgand Vermietungsgesellschaft Objekt Kirchberg on the followingquestion:
Official Journal of the European Union EN 23.8.2003 C 200/17
Does subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 13C of
the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 onthe harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating toturnover taxes —Common system of value added tax (
1),
permit a Member State which has exercised the power to allow
taxpayers a right of option for taxation in cases of letting and
leasing of immovable property to make full deduction of theinput VAT conditional upon non-retroactive approval of the taxauthorities first being obtained?
(1) OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1.
Action brought on 23 June 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(Case C-270/03)
(2003/C 200/30)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 June2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,represented by L. Visaggio and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that, by permitting undertakings, under
Article 30(4) of Legislative Decree No 22, of 5 February1997, as amended by Law No 426, of 9 December 1998,
to collect and transport their own non-hazardous waste,
as an ordinary activity, without requiring them to beregistered in the national register of undertakings carryingout waste disposal services, and, in addition, by permit-ting undertakings to transport their own hazardous wastein quantities of less than 30 kg and 30 litres per day,
without requiring them to be entered in that register, the
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations underArticle 12 of Directive 75/442/EEC (
1) on waste, as
amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2);
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
As regards non-hazardous waste, Article 30(4) of the Legisla-
tive Decree expressly exempts undertakings which, on their
own account, collect and transport non-hazardous waste in
the course of their particular occupational activities from therequirement of registration in the national register of under-takings carrying out waste disposal services.As regards hazardous waste transported directly by its
producer, the same provision of the Italian decree establishesa further exemption from the requirement of registration inthe register referred to above, which applies to undertakingsthat transport less than 30 litres or 30 kg of waste per day.
In sum, the requirement in question is limited to the collection
and transportation of hazardous waste, except in cases where
the collection or transportation of such waste is carried out by
its producer in quantities below a certain daily limit, and tothe collection and transportation of non-hazardous waste onbehalf of others.
That is clearly inconsistent with the directive. According to
Article 12 of the directive, all undertakings, without distinc-tion, which on a professional basis collect or transport wasteof any kind, whether hazardous or non-hazardous, must,
where not subject to authorisation, be registered with the
competent authorities.
(1) OJ L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.03.1991, p. 32.
Action brought on 21 June 2003 by Ireland against the
Commission of the European Communities
(Case C-271/03)
(2003/C 200/31)
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 21 June 2003 by Ireland, represented by
D.J. O'Hagan, acting as agent, assisted by P. Gallagher SC,P. McGarry, Barrister and J. Buttimore of the Office of theAttorney General, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:a) declare the action admissible;
b) annul Commission Decision C(2003)1084 reducing assis-
tance granted from the European Regional DevelopmentFind (ERDF) to the Global Grant Scheme for PrivateSector Tourism and Development, Operational Programmefor Tourism (1989-1993) sub-programme 2, in Ireland
under Commission Decision C89(2258/7) of 21 December
1989;
c) order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceed-
ings.