Case C-232/03: Action brought on 28 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, free movement of workers, frontier worker, residence, vehicle registration

2.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/21

Pleas in law and new arguments

In general terms, for the provisions of an international treaty
to be able to continue to have effect after its natural expiry a
decision in that behalf must be taken in concertation by the
signatory States and only by them.

No joint position was adopted by the signatory States of the
ECSC Treaty, prior
to the expiry thereof, with a view to
extending its validity in its entirety and to providing for a
general transitional regime to ensure the continuance in effect
of all
its provisions. Instead the signatory States allowed the
ECSC Treaty to be extinguished, merely regulating the transfer
of ECSC provisions to the EC regime in regard to certain
sectors. In particular, no joint provision was made in regard
to a transitional regime in competition matters under the ECSC
Treaty. In the case of investigations under way at the time of
expiry of the ECSC Treaty such expiry could not be claimed to
be ‘non-retroactive’ since that would entail the continuance in
effect of its provisions, no right, obligation or legal situation
arising during the currency of the Treaty itself.

From the applicant's point of view, absorption of the ECSC
rules within the EC rules may occur only by way of an
instrument manifesting the common will in that regard of the
signatory states.

Action brought on 28 May 2003 by the Commission of
the Republic of
the European Communities

against

Finland

(Case C-232/03)

(2003/C 184/37)

An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 May
2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities,
represented by D. Martin and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by preventing cross-frontier workers from
benefiting from certain benefits provided to them by their
employers on the sole ground that the workers in ques-
tion live in the Republic of Finland,
into which the
vehicles owned by their employers have been imported,
the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Articles 10 EC and 39 EC;

2. Order Finland to pay the costs.

vehicle registered abroad. They require payment of the car tax
chargeable in Finland before the vehicle may be used. Car tax
is to be levied on vehicles which are used in traffic in Finland,
even to a small extent, unless a specific exception is laid down
by law.

Under the Finnish provisions, car tax is to be paid on a vehicle
before it is used on Finnish territory. If the vehicle is never-
theless used without paying tax in cases in which tax should
have been regarded as paid, the authorities levy tax on the
vehicle.

The Finnish legislation, contrary to Article 39 EC, prevents the
realisation of
freedom of movement of workers, because
employees living in Finland cannot use a car provided by their
employer and registered in another Member State for their
work in Finland, if tax is not paid on the car in Finland. As
a result of the Finnish legislation, employees resident in Finland
cannot accept an offer of work from a neighbouring State of
the European Union where the use in both countries of a car
provided by the employer is part of the work.

Companies operating in another Member State cannot engage
employees living in Finland because they cannot use a car
registered in another country in Finland if Finnish tax has not
been paid on the car. The practice discriminates in particular
against cross-frontier workers living in Finland, who cannot
use a car provided by the employer for daily work journeys
between the home and the workplace. The use of a car
provided by the employer
the
remuneration. A Member State breaches the duty of coopera-
tion under Article 10 EC if
the
Member State prevent freedom of movement in such a way
that workers living in another Member State cannot pursue
their occupation in the other Member State.

is often a regular part of

the national measures of

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia
Nacional by order of that Court of 16 April 2003 in the
case of Contse S.A., Vivisol SRL and Oxigen Salud S.A.
against INSALUD (now INGESA)

(Case C-234/03)

(2003/C 184/38)

Pleas in law and main arguments

the possibility for a
Provisions of Finnish legislation limit
person permanently resident in Finland to use in Finland a

the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by order of
the Audiencia Nacional
(National High Court) of 16 April 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 2 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Contse S.A., Vivisol SRL and Oxigen Salud S.A. against
INSALUD (now INGESA) on the following questions:

Justice of