Case C-366/01: Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland
Date: 2001-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, rail transport, safety standard, transport of dangerous goods

C 331/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.11.2001

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
’s-Hertogenbosch by order of 5 September 2001 in the
case of H. Barbier against the decision of the head of the
section ‘non-resident individuals/undertakings’, Heerlen,
of the national revenue service

Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-366/01)

(2001/C 331/19)

(Case C-364/01)

(2001/C 331/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of European
Communities by order of 5 September 2001 by the Gerechts-
hof (District Court) ’s-Hertogenbosch which was received at
the Court Registry on 24 September 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of H. Barbier against the decision of the head
of the section ‘non-resident individuals/undertakings’, Heerlen,
of the national revenue service on the following questions:

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 24 September 2001
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Marie Wolfcarius, acting as agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 1999/48/EC(1) of 21 May 1999
adapting for the second time to technical progress
Council Directive 96/49/EC on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of
dangerous goods by rail, or in any event by failing to
inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has
failed to fulfil its obligations under this Directive,

(2) order Ireland to pay the costs.

1.

Is cross-border economic activity at present a precon-
dition of the application of Community law?

Pleas in law and main arguments

2. When a Member State imposes, on inheritance of immov-
able property situated in that Member State, a charge to
tax on the value of that property, does Community law
preclude it from allowing deduction of the value of the
liability to transfer the legal title to that property where
the testator at the time of death was resident in that
Member State but not where at the time of death he was
resident in another Member State?

Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the Directive. That period
expired on 1 July 1999 without Ireland having enacted the
provisions necessary to comply with the Directive referred to
in the conclusions of the Commission.

(1) OJ L 169, 5.7.1999, p. 58.

3. Does it make any difference to the reply to be given to
Question 2, whether at the time of acquisition of the
immovable property the testator no longer resided in the
Member State in which the property is situated?

4.

5.

Is the distribution of the testator’s capital as between the
State in which the property is situated, the State of
residence and any other States relevant to Question 2?

If so, in which State is a capital investment which is
constituted by a claim under current-accounting arrange-
ments on a limited company such as that described in
paragraph 2.4 invested?

Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-
ic Republic

(Case C-367/01)

(2001/C 331/20)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 Sep-
tember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by Antonio Caeiros, legal Adviser, and Panos
Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on secondment to its
Legal Service.