Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2002 in Case C-431/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Mons): Philippe Mertens v Belgian State (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of movement for persons — Tax legislation — Direct taxation — Deduction of personal losses)
Date: 2002-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, dangerous substance, environmental risk prevention, industrial hazard

23.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 289/5

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 11 July 2002

(First Chamber)

of 12 September 2002

in Case C-464/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes
Oberösterreich): Primetzhofer Stahl -und Fahrzeugbau
GmbH v Oberösterreichischer Landesregierung (1)

in Case C-431/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour d’Appel, Mons): Philippe Mertens v Belgian
State (1)

(Preliminary ruling — Lack of relationship with the subject-
matter of the dispute — Inadmissible)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of
movement for persons — Tax legislation — Direct taxation
— Deduction of personal losses)

(2002/C 289/08)

(Language of the case: German)

(2002/C 289/09)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-464/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes
Oberösterreich (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the pro-
ceedings pending before that court between Primetzhofer
Stahl -und Fahrzeugbau GmbH and Oberösterreichischer Lan-
intervener: Landes Oberösterreich — on the
desregierung,
interpretation of the third sentence of the second subparagraph
of Article 2(8) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-
ber 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the application of review
procedures to the award of public supply and public works
contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordi-
nation of procedures for the award of public service contracts
(OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: P.
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
M. Wathelet, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas,
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
made an order on 11 July 2002 , in which it has ruled:

Jann, President of

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich by order of 15 December
2000 is inadmissible.

In Case C-431/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Cour d’Appel (Court of Appeal), Mons (Belgium),
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Philippe Mertens and État Belge — on the
interpretation of Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) — the Court
the
(First Chamber), composed of: P.
Chamber, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
order on 12 September 2002 in which it has ruled:

Jann, President of

Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)
precludes legislation by a Member State under which a natural person
who resides in that Member State and pursues there a professional
activity as a self-employed person cannot deduct from the taxable
income in one year, as part of the system of taxes payable by natural
persons, a loss suffered in the previous year unless it was impossible
to set that loss against income received as an employee in another
Member State during that same year inasmuch as a loss thus set
against income cannot be deducted from taxable income in any of the
Member States concerned, whereas it would be deductible if the
abovementioned natural person had pursued his activities as a self
employed person and as an employee exclusively within the Member
Sate in which he resides.

( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.

(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.