Case C-231/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Brescia Regional Court — Third Civil Chamber — by order of that court of 8 May 2001 in case of El.Da. s.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze
Date: 2001-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Italy, corporation tax, indirect tax, interpretation of the law, tax on capital

11.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 227/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
de Pau (First Criminal Chamber) by judgment of that
court of 15 May 2001, in the criminal proceedings against
Jacques Bourrasse — Party claiming civil damages: Union
Régionale Syndicale des Petits et Moyens Transporteurs
du Sud Ouest (UNOSTRA Aquitaine); Intervener: Inspec-
tion du Travail des Transports

(Case C-228/01)

(2001/C 227/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de
Pau (First Criminal Chamber) of 15 May 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 11 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the criminal proceedings against Jacques Bourrasse — Party
claiming civil damages: Union Régionale Syndicale des Petits
et Moyens Transporteurs du Sud Ouest (UNOSTRA Aquitaine);
Intervener:
Inspection du Travail des Transports, on the
following questions:

1.

Can ‘the hiring of a vehicle without a driver’ as envisaged
by Article 2 of Council Directive 84/647/EEC (1) be
interpreted as permitting the lessor, a road haulage
company governed by French law:

— to obtain the carriage authorisations necessary
within French territory on behalf of the lessee, a
road haulage company governed by Portuguese law

— to manage on behalf of the lessee, a road haulage
company governed by Portuguese law, the tacho-
graph discs of the drivers employed by that com-
pany?

2. Did the hired vehicles have to be registered in Portugal?

(1) Council Directive 84/647/EEC of 19 december 1984 on the use
of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road
(OJ L 335 of 22.12.1984 p. 72).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that
court of 31 May 2001,
in the case of Intervention
Board for Agricultural Produce against Penycoed Farming
Partnership

(Case C-230/01)

(2001/C 227/22)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) of 31 May 2001, which
was received at the Court Registry on 12 June 2001, for a

preliminary ruling in the case of
Intervention Board for
Agricultural Produce against Penycoed Farming Partnership,
on the following questions:

1. Do Articles 1 and/or 2 of Council Regulation 3950/92 (1)
permit the competent body in a Member State to take
legal action directly against a producer to recover levy
due from that producer (otherwise than pursuant to
Article 2 (3) in respect of direct sales)?

2.

3.

If so, in what circumstances may such action be taken?

In particular, may such action be taken where the
purchaser to whom milk was delivered was (a) not
approved pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Regu-
lation 536/93 (2) and/or (b) has not complied with any of
its obligations under Article 7 of
that Regulation
and/or (c) has not recovered or sought to recover levy
from the producers concerned?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, of 28 December 1992,
establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products
sector (OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying
down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on
milk and milk products (OJ L 57, 10.03.1993, p. 12).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Brescia Regional
Court — Third Civil Chamber — by order of that court
of 8 May 2001 in case of El.Da. s.r.l. against Ministero
delle Finanze

(Case C-231/01)

(2001/C 227/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Brescia Regional Court
— Third Civil Chamber — of 8 May 2001 received at the
Court Registry on 12 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of El.Da. s.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze on the
following question:

(1)

Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December
1998 (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary
supplement) compatible with Community law, in particu-
lar with Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive
69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes
on the raising of capital, inasmuch as it provides that the
administrative charge is payable at a flat annual rate for
registration of other company documents for each of the
years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of the
sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for
private limited companies and ITL 90 000 for other
companies?

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