Case C-326/02: Action brought on 17 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2002-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental monitoring, industrial pollution, national implementing measure, organic chemical, pollution control measures, solvent

9.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 274/19

received at the Court Registry on 12 September 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Petri Mikael
Manninen on the following questions:

1.

2.

Is Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community to be interpreted as precluding a corporation
tax credit system like the Finnish one described above, in
which the recipient of a dividend who is generally liable
to tax in Finland is granted a corporation tax credit in
respect of a dividend paid by a domestic share company,
but not in respect of dividend income he receives from a
share company registered in Sweden?

If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative,
may Article 58 EC be interpreted as meaning that the
provisions of Article 56 are without prejudice to Finland’s
right to apply the relevant provisions of the Law on
Corporation Tax Credits, since it
is a condition for
obtaining a corporation tax credit in Finland that the
company distributing the dividend has paid the corre-
sponding tax or supplementary tax in Finland, which
does not take place with respect to a dividend paid from
abroad, in which case taxation is not even carried out
once?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
(Sweden) by order of that Court of 10 September 2002 in
the case of Förvaltnings AB Stenholmen against Riksskat-
teverket

(Case C-320/02)

(2002/C 274/31)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Regeringsrätten
(Supreme Administrative Court) (Sweden) of 10 September
2002, received at the Court Registry on 13 September 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Förvaltnings AB
Stenholmen against Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board) on
the following questions:

1.

Can an animal be considered to be second-hand goods?

If that question is answered in the affirmative, the Court
is asked to answer the following question.

2.

Is an animal which is purchased from a private individual
(rather than a breeder) and which is sold, after training,
for a specific purpose to be considered to be second-hand
goods?

Action brought on 16 September 2002 by the Com-
the
mission of

the European Communities against

Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-324/02)

(2002/C 274/32)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 Sep-
tember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1) of 22 April 1999
relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and
lead in ambient air or,
in any event, by failing to
communicate such provisions to the Commission, the
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC
and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC requires the Member
States to adopt the measures necessary to implement the
directives addressed to them before the expiry of the period
prescribed for that purpose. The period in question expired on
19 July 2001 without Spain’s having introduced the necessary
measures.

(1) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.

Action brought on 17 September 2002 by the Com-
the
mission of

the European Communities against

Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-326/02)

(2002/C 274/33)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Sep-

C 274/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.11.2002

tember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on
the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds
due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and
installations or, in any event, by failing to communicate
such provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of
Spain has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that
directive;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC
and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC requires the Member
States to adopt the measures necessary to implement the
directives addressed to them before the expiry of the period
prescribed for that purpose. The period in question expired on
1 April 2001 without Spain’s having introduced the necessary
measures.

( 1) OJ L 85, 29.3.1999, p. 1.

1. Must the answer given by the Court to question 4 in its
judgment of 27 November 2001 in Case C-257/99
is
Barkoci and Malik be interpreted to mean that it
incompatible with Article 45(1) in conjunction with
Article 59(1) of the Association Agreement with Bulgaria,
Article 44(3)
in conjunction with Article 58 of the
Association Agreement with Poland and Article 45(3) in
conjunction with Article 59 of the Association Agreement
with the Slovak Republic for the competent authority,
when assessing an application submitted in the Nether-
lands for a full residence permit with a view to establish-
ment in accordance with the Association Agreement, to
refrain from examining the contents of the application
solely on the ground that the applicant does not have a
temporary residence permit? Does the fact
that the
substantive entry requirements are clearly and manifestly
satisfied make any difference to the answer to this
question?

2.

Is it relevant for the purposes of answering the first
question, and if so how, whether the person applying for
a full residence permit is legally resident in the Nether-
lands at the time of the application, whether or not on
the basis of an entitlement other than a temporary
residence permit, such as the ‘free period’ referred to in
Article 8 of the Vreemdelingenwet?

Action brought on 19 September 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against Ireland

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank te
s’-Gravenhage by decision of that Court of 16 September
2002 in the case of Lili Georgieva Panayotova, Radostina
Markova Kalcheva, Izabella Malgorzata Lis, Lubica Sopo-
va, Izabela Leokadia Topa and Jolanta Monika Rusiecka
against Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie

(Case C-330/02)

(2002/C 274/35)

(Case C-327/02)

(2002/C 274/34)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of
the Rechtbank te
s’-Gravenhage (District Court, The Hague) of 16 September
2002, received at
the Court Registry on 18 September
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lili Georgieva
Panayotova, Radostina Markova Kalcheva, Izabella Malgorzata
Lis, Lubica Sopova, Izabela Leokadia Topa and Jolanta Monika
Rusiecka against Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Inte-
gratie (Minister for Alien Affairs and Integration) on the
following questions:

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 19 September 2002
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr X. Lewis, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on
the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds
due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and