Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2003 in Case C-300/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch): Doris Salzmann (Free movement of capital — Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) — Prior authorisation procedure for the acquisition of building plots — Purely internal situation — Article 70 of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Austria — Concept of "existing legislation" — Point 1(e) of Annex XII to the EEA Agreement)
Date: 2003-07-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: building plot, free movement of capital, interpretation of the law, market approval

C 158/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 15 May 2003

in Case C-266/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Préservatrice foncière
TIARD SA v Staat der Nederlanden (1)

(Brussels Convention — Article 1 — Scope — Concept of
‘civil and commercial matters’ — Concept of ‘customs
matters’ — Action based on a guarantee contract between
the State and an insurance company — Contract entered
into in order to satisfy a condition imposed by the State on
associations of carriers, principal debtors, under Article 6 of
the TIR Convention)

to enable a third person to supply a guarantee required and
defined by that State, in so far as the legal relationship between
the creditor and the guarantor, under the guarantee contract,
does not entail the exercise by the State of powers going beyond
those existing under the rules applicable to relations between
private individuals;

— ‘customs matters’, within the meaning of the second sentence of
that provision, does not cover a claim by which a contracting
State seeks to enforce a guarantee contract intended to guarantee
the payment of a customs debt, where the legal relationship
between the State and the guarantor, under that contract, does
not entail the exercise by the State of powers going beyond
those existing under the rules applicable to relations between
private individuals, even if the guarantor may raise pleas in
defence which necessitate an investigation into the existence and
content of the customs debt.

(2003/C 158/08)

(1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-266/01: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)
for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Préservatrice foncière TIARD SA and Staat
der Nederlanden, on the interpretation of Article 1 of the
abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1972
L 299, p. 32), as amended by the Convention of 9 October
1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland
and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and — amended text — p. 77), by the
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention
of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain
and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Principal Administrator, Registrar, has given a judgment on
15 May 2003, in which it has ruled:

The first paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention of 27 September
1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October
1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession
of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, must be
interpreted as follows:

— ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of the first
sentence of that provision, covers a claim by which a contracting
State seeks to enforce against a person governed by private law
a private-law guarantee contract which was concluded in order

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 15 May 2003

in Case C-300/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landesgericht Feldkirch): Doris Salzmann (1)

(Free movement of capital — Article 73b of the EC Treaty
(now Article 56 EC) — Prior authorisation procedure for the
acquisition of building plots — Purely internal situation —
Article 70 of the Act of Accession of the Republic of
Austria — Concept of ‘existing legislation’ — Point 1(e) of
Annex XII to the EEA Agreement)

(2003/C 158/09)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-300/01, reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the land registration case brought before that court
by Doris Salzmann — on the interpretation of Article 73b of
the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) and of point 1(e) of
Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area
of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) — the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Presi-
dent of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-
F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it has ruled:

5.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/7

1. Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC)
precludes an administrative authorisation procedure prior to
acquisition of land, such as that established by the Vorarlberger
Grundverkehrsgesetz (Vorarlberg Land Transfer Law) of
23 September 1993, as amended in LGBl. 1997/85. It is for
the national court to determine whether such a procedure is
covered by the derogation established by Article 70 of the Act
concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of
Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
Union is founded.

2.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no
jurisdiction to answer the third question submitted.

( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.

1. Declares that, by failing to identify sensitive areas in the
intracommunal catchment area of the Autonomous Community
the Autonomous
of Catalonia and the coastal waters of
Communities of the Basque Country, Catalonia, Valencia, the
Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands, and of the autonomous
city of Ceuta, the Kingdom of Spain failed to fulfil
its
obligations under Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC
of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 15 May 2003

in Case C-419/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
Directive 91/271/EEC — Article 5 — Urban waste water
treatment — Failure to identify sensitive areas)

(2003/C 158/10)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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

In Case C-419/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
L. Fraguas Gadea): Application for a declaration that, by
identifying sensitive areas in only some regions of its territory,
the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991
concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135,
p. 40), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puisso-
chet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann,
F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it has ruled:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 15 May 2003

in Case C-483/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
96/29/Euratom — Protection of the health of workers and
the general public against the dangers arising from ionising
radiation — Incomplete implementation)

(2003/C 158/11)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-483/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. Tricot) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
and C. Isidoro): Application for a declaration that by failing to
in any event, by failing to communicate to
adopt and,
the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/29/
Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards
for the protection of the health of workers and the general
public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ
1996 L 159, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola, Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it: