Case C-367/01: Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Date: 2001-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, harmonisation of standards, satellite communications, telecommunications equipment

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.

24.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331/13

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
Commission, within the time limit laid down, the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply fully with Directive 1999/5/EC (1) of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio
equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment
and the mutual recognition of their conformity, the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the EC Treaty,

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster and S. Terstal,
acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul Commission Decision SG (2001) D/289751 of
11 July 2001 relating to Aid Measure No C 56/2001 on
the granting of State aid in the area of maritime transport
to the activities of Netherlands tug boats in internal waters
and seaports within the EU (by which the Commission
informs the Netherlands of its decision to initiate the
procedure set out in Article 88(2) EC);

Pleas in law and main arguments

2. Order the Commission to pay the costs.

In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
State to which they are addressed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
of the Community.

It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
measures to comply with the abovementioned Directive.

The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the Directive at issue into Greek law.

(1) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999, p. 10.

Action brought on 25 September 2001 by the Kingdom of
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-368/01)

(2001/C 331/21)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European

— Decision contrary to Article 88 EC and Regulation (EC)
No 659/1999: the Commission does not have the power
to classify, as a new aid measure, a measure that has
already been approved. If the Commission, in the exercise
of its duties relating to the continuous monitoring of
existing aid measures, were able, whether of its own
motion or by reason of a complaint, to classify such an
aid measure immediately and with retroactive effect as a
new aid measure, that would be contrary to the system
laid down in Article 88 EC and Regulation (EC)
No 659/1999.

The Commission has in no way decided that the appli-
cation of
‘tax incentives’ and ‘taxation according to
tonnage’ to the activities of tug boats in ports and internal
waters within the European Union is not covered by its
decision approving the aid measure, with the result that
the Commission cannot now decide to consider such
application as constituting a new aid measure. The
Commission’s reasoning that there is now a case of new
aid, on the ground that the Netherlands Government
formally agreed to the Commission proposal to adopt
appropriate measures, within the period specified for that
purpose, which expired on 5 January 1999, in order to
bring the existing aid measures into line with the
Guidelines, which might suggest that the Netherlands aid
measures, as approved, had been brought into line with
the Guidelines and were compatible with them, is without
basis in Article 88 EC or Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

The Commission’s reasoning in this regard is also entirely
illogical. Assuming that the Netherlands Government had
intended to notify the Commission that the Netherlands
aid measures in question had been brought into line with
the Guidelines and were thus in accordance with the
conditions laid down therein, that must naturally also
have been done on the basis of the Netherlands Govern-
ment’s knowledge of the interpretation of the Guidelines
at that time.