Case C-211/01: Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against Council of the European Union
Date: 2001-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Hungary, action for annulment (EU), transit

28.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 212/15

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative: Is it contrary to
Article 48 of the EC Treaty if an EC official living in
Luxembourg who is deemed to be resident in Germany
and pays contributions in Luxembourg to the statutory
pension insurance scheme for a household help is not
entitled to deduct
special expenditure under Para-
graph 10(1)(8) of the Einkommensteuergesetz?

4.

If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative: May the
principles developed in the judgment in Case C-112/91
Werner [1993] ECR I-429 be applied to the present case?

their transposition. That time-limit expired on 15 June 1999
without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
referred to in the Commission’s application.

(1) OJ L 71, 10.3.1998, p. 1.

Action brought on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-210/01)

(2001/C 212/25)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 May
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Roberto Amorosi, acting as
Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
mission Directive 98/11/EC of 27 January 1998
implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard
to energy labelling of household lamps (1) or,
in any
event, by failing to forward them to the Commission, the
Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive; and

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for

Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Commission of the
European Communities against Council of the European
Union

(Case C-211/01)

(2001/C 212/26)

An action against Council of the European Union was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
23 May 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Council decisions of 19 March 2001 concern-
ing the conclusion of the agreement between the Euro-
pean Community and Bulgaria and Hungary (1) on trans-
port inasmuch as they are based on Article 93 EC whereas
the necessary and sufficient legal basis is Article 71 EC;

— maintain the effects of those agreements until the Council

adopts new measures;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The proper legal basis for the adoption of the transport
agreements referred to is Article 71 EC, the only basis required
by the primary objective of the said instruments. The fiscal
element must form an integral part of those agreements
because it is involved in the objective of implementing the
common transport policy. Its role is to ensure that the system
of reciprocal authorisations, created under the agreements, is
run in a non-discriminatory manner.

The concurrent use of Article 93 EC as a legal basis is precluded
by the fact that Article 71 requires only qualified majority
voting in the Council, whereas Article 93 requires unanimity.
Admittedly, the problem regarding consultation of the Euro-
pean Parliament has not arisen in practice in light of
Article 300(3) which governs the conclusion of international
agreements. Nevertheless the possibility remains since the

C 212/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.7.2001

requirement of unanimity of the Council would radically
change the procedure for concluding such transport agree-
ments, which are normally subject to qualified majority voting.

Action brought on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
of Germany

(1) Council Decision 2001/265/EC concerning the conclusion of the
Agreement between the European Community and the Republic
of Bulgaria establishing certain conditions for the carriage of
goods by road and the promotion of combined transport (OJ
2001 L 108, p. 4).
Council Decision 2001/266/EC concerning the conclusion of the
Agreement between the European Community and the Republic
of Hungary establishing certain conditions for the carriage of
goods by road and the promotion of combined transport (OJ
2001 L 108, p. 4).

(Case C-214/01)

(2001/C 212/28)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Innsbruck (Austria) by order of that court of 9 May 2001
in the case of Margarete Unterpertinger v Pensionsver-
sicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter

(Case C-212/01)

(2001/C 212/27)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht Inns-
bruck (District Court) of 9 May 2001 which was received at
the Court Registry on 23 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Margarete Unterpertinger against Pensionsver-
sicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter on the following questions:

1.

2.

Is Article 13A(1)(c) of
the Sixth Council Directive
(77/388/EEC) (1) 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, to be interpreted as meaning that the
exemption from value added tax provided for therein
does not apply to turnover from the activity of a doctor
which consists in determining the disability or ability of
a person applying for a pension?

Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities in Case C-384/98 D v W to be interpreted
as meaning that medical examinations and expert
opinions based on them for the purpose of establishing
or excluding disability, incapacity to work or invalidity
do not fall within the scope of application of the provision
referred to in Question 1 above, whether or not the
doctor who acts as an expert is instructed by a court or a
pension insurance institution?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, legal adviser,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of G.
Berscheid, legal adviser, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary
to fulfil
its obligations under Articles 6, 7 and 9 of
Council Directive 89/618/Euratom (1) of 27 November
1989 on informing the general public about health
protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken
in the event of a radiological emergency, the Federal
Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive.

2. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Incorrect transposition of Article 6 of the directive: The
requirement under Article 6 to inform the population
affected has not been ensured by means of binding legal
provisions in Germany. Article 6 is, however, of central
importance in order to achieve the objective set out in
Article 1 of improving the health protection of the
population; for the effectiveness of those provisions of
the directive it is therefore important that the content
and scope of the authorities’ obligations to inform the
public are sufficiently clear and are not a matter of choice
by the administrative authorities, as is the case with an
administrative instruction.

— Failure to implement Article 7 of the directive: In the
Commission’s view legally binding provisions are also
necessary in order to implement Article 7 of the directive.
The provision made there for persons involved in emerg-
ency assistance to be informed is not, however, ensured
in Germany by means of binding legal provisions.