Case C-320/02: 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 Riksskatteverket
Date: 2002-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal welfare, interpretation of the law, protection of animals

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-