Case C-212/01: 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 Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter
Date: 2001-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, disability insurance, interpretation of the law, medical examination, physician, tax exemption

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.