Cases C-237/01 and C-238/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 18 June 2001 in the appeal concerning Ewald Feichtinger, Dr Dieter Cerha, the Salzburg District Commission, the Mayor of Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land of Salzburg
Date: 2001-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Salzburg, acquisition of property, administrative formalities, building plot, fundamental rights, interpretation of the law

C 227/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.8.2001

(2)

Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with
Community law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on
the sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the
sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated
according to the legal rate in force at the date on which
that Law entered into force (2,5 % per annum) and not
according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with
respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as
subsequently amended?

(1) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Politierechtbank
Te Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) by order
of that court of 11 June 2001 in the case of Openbaar
Ministerie against Hans Van Lent

(Case C-232/01)

(2001/C 227/24)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Politierechtbank Te
Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) of 11 June 2001
for a
received at
preliminary ruling in the case of Openbaar Ministerie against
Hans Van Lent on the following question:

the Court Registry an 18 June 2001,

Do Community rules, in particular Article 39 EC (ex Article 48
of the EC Treaty) and Article 10 EC (ex Article 5 of the EC
Treaty), preclude a Member State from requiring registration
of a vehicle belonging (1) to a leasing company established in
a neighbouring Member State, which is leased by an employer
and used by an employee (2) who is resident in the first-
mentioned Member State, at a distance of some 200 km from
his place of employment, in a situation where the employee in
question resides in the first-mentioned Member State (3) during
the week and uses the vehicle in order to perform his contract
including
of employment and also during his free time,
weekends and holiday periods?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 18
June 2001 in the appeal concerning Ewald Feichtinger,
Dr Dieter Cerha, the Salzburg District Commission, the
Mayor of Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land
of Salzburg

tungssenat Salzburg of 18 June 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 20 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
appeal concerning Ewald Feichtinger, the Salzburg District
Commission and the land transfer agent of the Land of
Salzburg (Case C-237/01), and Dr Dieter Cerha, the Mayor of
Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land of Salzburg
(Case C-238/01) on the following question:

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?

Action brought on 25 June 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Sweden

(Case C-247/01)

(2001/C 227/26)

An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 June
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its
obligations both under the first sentence of Article 4(4)
of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on
the conservation of wild birds, most recently amended by
Directive 97/49/EC (2), which was replaced by Article 6(3)
and (4) of Council Directive (3) 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora, and under Articles 6(3) and 9(2) of
Directive 79/409/EEC,

2.

order the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.

(Cases C-237/01 and C-238/01)

(2001/C 227/25)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-

In accordance with the Treaty of Accession Sweden undertook
to fulfil the requirements of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of