Case C-415/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 9 November 2000 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Herbert Pflanzl, (2) Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, (3) Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and (4) Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, acquisition of property, administrative procedure, building plot, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law

C 28/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.1.2001

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case C-407/00 (4); the time-limit for transposition
expired on 13 February 1999, 31 March 1999 and 30 April
1999 respectively.

(1) OJ 1998 L 208, p. 49.
(2) OJ 1998 L 261, p. 32.
(3) OJ 1998 L 290, p. 25.
(4) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.

Action brought on 9 November 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Netherlands

(Case C-413/00)

(2001/C 28/28)

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
9 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by B. Mongin and H. M. H. Speyart,
of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Go´ mez de la Cruz, of
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

Action brought on 10 November 2000 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Portu-
guese Republic

(Case C-414/00)

(2001/C 28/29)

An action against
the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
10 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
prescribed period all the provisions necessary to comply
with Council Directive 97/78/EC (1) of 18 December
1997 laying down the principles governing the organis-
ation of veterinary checks on products entering the
Community from third countries, the Portuguese Repub-
lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10
and 249 of the EC Treaty; and

— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case C-407/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition
of the directive expired on 1 June 1999.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) OJ 1998 L 24, p. 9.
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.

1. Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 98/41/EC (1) of 18 June 1998 on the
registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships
operating to or from ports of the Member States of the
Community, or in any event by not
informing the
Commission of such measures,
the Kingdom of the
Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive.

2. Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-407/00 (2); the period for transposition expired on
1 January 1999.

(1) OJ 1998 L 188, p. 35.
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
9 November 2000 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Herbert
Pflanzl, (2) Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg,
(3) Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and
(4) Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg

(Case C-415/00)

(2001/C 28/30)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 9 November 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 13 November 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Herbert Pflanzl, (2)
Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, (3) Grundver-
kehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and (4) Grundver-
kehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg on the following
question:

27.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/17

Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 13, 36
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg land
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with
a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?

4. must Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July 1967
(replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of 22 February
1994) be disapplied by the Italian courts?

5. must bread baked from frozen or non-frozen part-baked
bread (lawfully manufactured in and imported from
France) be allowed into free circulation without any
restriction, such as the previous packaging requirement
provided for in Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July
1967 (replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of
22 February 1994)?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Padova by order of that court of 16 October 2000 in the
case of Tommaso Morellato against Comune di Padova

(Case C-416/00)

(2001/C 28/31)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile di
Padova — Sezione II (Padua Civil District Court — Second
Chamber) of 16 October 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 13 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Tommaso Morellato against Comune di Padova
on the following questions:

1. must Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July 1967
(replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of 22 February
1994), as interpreted by the Mayor of the Commune of
Padua in the contested order, in so far as it prohibits the
sale of bread baked from frozen or non-frozen part-baked
bread (lawfully manufactured in and imported from
France), if it has not previously been packaged by the
reseller, be regarded as incompatible with Articles 30 and
36 of the EC Treaty?

2. must Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July 1967
(replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of 22 February
1994) and the subsequent construction placed upon it by
the Mayor of the Commune of Padua be regarded as a
quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent
effect within the meaning of Article 30 of the EC Treaty?

3.

if so, may the Italian State avail itself of the derogation
provided for by Article 36 of the Treaty for the purpose
of protecting the health and lives of humans?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
31 October 2000 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Werner
Salentinig, (2) Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salz-
burg, and (3) Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salz-
burg

(Case C-420/00)

(2001/C 28/32)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 31 October 2000, received at the Court
Registry on 14 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
(2)
in the appeal concerning Dr (1) Werner Salentinig,
Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, and (3) Grund-
verkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg:

Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with
a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?