Case C-214/01: Action brought on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2001-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, public awareness campaign, public health, radiation protection

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.

28.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 212/17

— Failure to implement Article 9 of the directive: Until
Germany has adopted provisions for the implementation
there are inevitably no
of Article 6 and Article 7,
provisions regarding the procedures for circulating the
information and those to whom the information is to be
addressed.

(1) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
Augsburg by order of that court of 26 February 2001 in
the matter of a fine imposed on Bruno Schnitzer

(Case C-215/01)

(2001/C 212/29)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Augsburg
of 26 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on 23 May
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the matter of a fine on Bruno
Schnitzer on the following question:

Is it compatible with EC law on the free movement of services
for a Portuguese undertaking, which in its country of origin
fulfils the conditions for carrying on a commercial activity, to
have to satisfy further — albeit purely formal — conditions (in
this case registration on the Skilled Trades Register), in order
to carry on that activity in Germany not just on a short-term
basis but for a longer period?

Appeal brought on 25 May 2001 by Michel Hendrickx
against the order made on 12 March 2001 by the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-298/00 between Michel Hend-
rickx and the Centre européen pour le développement de
la formation professionnelle (CEDEFOP)

(Case C-217/01 P)

(2001/C 212/30)

professionnelle (CEDEFOP) was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 25 May 2001 by
Michel Hendrickx, represented by J.N. Louis and V. Peere, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber)
of 12 March 2001 in Case T-298/00 (Michel Hendrickx v
CEDEFOP) (1);

then, itself giving judgment on the basis of new provisions:

— grant the appellant leave to amend his pleas in law and

submissions;

in the alternative,

— hold that the decision of the Director of CEDEFOP of
14 November 2000 was taken by an incompetent
authority;

— consequently, annul that decision and also CEDEFOP’s
implied decision rejecting the appellant’s claim for pay-
ment of a (re-)installation allowance corresponding to
two months’ basic salary;

— order the defendant to pay the appellant the sum of
FEB 316 292, plus default interest at 7 % per annum
from 22 July 1999, and to pay the costs of both sets of
proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The Court of First Instance erred in law in deciding that
CEDEFOP had granted the appellant’s claim, whereas the
decision of 14 November 2000 is a non-existent decision
adopted by an incompetent authority: the Director of
CEDEFOP could not lawfully determine the appellant’s
claim, since the matter had been referred to the Appeals
Board;

— (In the alternative) The Court of First Instance erred in
law since, by not granting the appellant leave to amend
his submissions and pleas in law, it did not allow him to
bring before the Community judicature the dispute
between himself and CEDEFOP over, first, the fixing of
the (re-)installation allowance to which he was entitled as
a result of being reassigned to the Council in Brussels
and, second, the reimbursement of a sum allegedly paid
in error in connection with the installation allowance
paid to him when he took up his post in Thessalonika.

An appeal against the order made on 12 March 2001 by the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-298/00 between Michel Hendrickx and
the Centre européen pour le développement de la formation

(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001, p. 18.