Case C-269/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'appel of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment of that Court in the civil proceedings between 1. Administration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines, and 2. État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg and Vermietungsgesellschaft Objekt Kirchberg
Date: 2003-08-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Luxembourg, VAT, interpretation of the law, tax harmonisation, tax relief

C 200/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.8.2003

Secondly, reserving delegated management contracts solely to
the legal entities listed in Article 4 of the Law of 12 July 1985
on the supervision of public work and its relation with the
supervision of private work, as amended, constitutes a restric-
tion on the principle of the freedom to provide services. Such a
restriction cannot be justified either by Article 45, inasmuch as
the tasks entrusted are not connected, even occasionally, with
the exercise of official authority, or by Article 46, since grounds
of public policy, public security or public health are not applic-
able in the present case.

with the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, Rumania
and Poland concerning inland navigation, which affect the
Community rules adopted by the Community in Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December 1991
laying down the conditions under which non-resident
carriers may transport goods or passengers by inland
waterway within a Member State. Article 7 of
those
agreements provides, subject to special authorisation, for
access to cabotage in Luxembourg by carriers from the
non-member countries concerned.

(1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
service
for

award of public

coordination of procedures
the
contracts (OJ L 209, 24.07.1992, p. 1).

Action brought on 18 June 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-266/03)

(2003/C 200/28)

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 18 June 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by C. Schmidt and W. Wils, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

1. Declare that, under the first paragraph of Article 226 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community,
the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by individually negotiating,
concluding, ratifying, arranging for the entry into force
and refusing to renounce the bilateral agreements with the
Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, Rumania and
Poland concerning inland navigation, has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 10 EC and Council Regula-
tion (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December 1991 laying
down the conditions under which non-resident carriers
may transport goods or passengers by inland waterway
within a Member State (1) and Council Regulation (EC)
No 1356/96 of 8 July 1996 on common rules applicable
to the transport of goods or passengers by inland
waterway between Member States with a view to estab-
lishing freedom to provide such transport services (2).

2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

10

EC by

— The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not observed its
negotiating,
obligations
under Article
the entry into
concluding, ratifying and arranging for
the bilateral agreements in question after the
force of
grant of a negotiating mandate by the Council
to the
Commission to negotiate an agreement between the EEC,
on the one hand, and Poland and the States parties to the
Danube Convention (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania,
the former Yugoslavia and
Bulgaria,
Austria), on the other.

the former USSR,

— The bilateral agreements concluded by the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg are incompatible with Council Regulation
(EC) No 1356/96 of 8 July 1996 on common rules
applicable to the transport of goods or passengers by
inland waterway between Member States with a view to
establishing freedom to provide such transport services.
The Polish, Rumanian, Czech and Slovak shippers and
navigation companies capable of being authorised under
the bilateral agreements in question to effect transports
between Luxembourg and the other Member States do
not satisfy the conditions laid down in that regulation.

(1) OJ 1991 L 373, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1996 L 175, p. 7.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'appel of
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment of that
Court in the civil proceedings between 1. Administration
de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines, and 2. État du
Grand-Duché de Luxembourg and Vermietungsgesellschaft
Objekt Kirchberg

(Case C-269/03)

(2003/C 200/29)

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has

infringed the
exclusive Community competence as defined in the
ERTA case (Case 22/70 Commission v Council
[1971]
ECR 263) by negotiating, concluding, ratifying and arran-
ging for the entry into force of the bilateral agreements

the Court Registry on 20 June 2003,

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of
the
European Communities by judgment of
the Cour d'appel
(Court of Appeal) of
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,
for a
received at
preliminary ruling in the civil proceedings between 1. Adminis-
tration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines (Registration and
Land Authority), and 2. État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
and Vermietungsgesellschaft Objekt Kirchberg on the following
question:

23.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/17

Does subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 13C of
the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
taxes — Common system of value added tax (1),
turnover
permit a Member State which has exercised the power to allow
taxpayers a right of option for taxation in cases of letting and
leasing of immovable property to make full deduction of the
input VAT conditional upon non-retroactive approval of the tax
authorities first being obtained?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1.

Action brought on 23 June 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-270/03)

(2003/C 200/30)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
the European Communities on 23 June
Court of
Justice of
2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities,
represented by L. Visaggio and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare

by

that,

undertakings,

under
permitting
Article 30(4) of Legislative Decree No 22, of 5 February
1997, as amended by Law No 426, of 9 December 1998,
to collect and transport their own non-hazardous waste,
as an ordinary activity, without requiring them to be
registered in the national register of undertakings carrying
out waste disposal services, and,
in addition, by permit-
ting undertakings to transport their own hazardous waste
less than 30 kg and 30 litres per day,
in quantities of
without requiring them to be entered in that register, the
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 12 of Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as
amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2);

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As regards non-hazardous waste, Article 30(4) of the Legisla-
tive Decree expressly exempts undertakings which, on their
own account, collect and transport non-hazardous waste in
the course of their particular occupational activities from the
requirement of registration in the national register of under-
takings carrying out waste disposal services.

regards hazardous waste

transported directly by its
As
producer, the same provision of the Italian decree establishes
a further exemption from the requirement of registration in
the register referred to above, which applies to undertakings
that transport less than 30 litres or 30 kg of waste per day.

In sum, the requirement in question is limited to the collection
and transportation of hazardous waste, except in cases where
the collection or transportation of such waste is carried out by
its producer in quantities below a certain daily limit, and to
the collection and transportation of non-hazardous waste on
behalf of others.

is clearly inconsistent with the directive. According to
That
Article 12 of the directive, all undertakings, without distinc-
tion, which on a professional basis collect or transport waste
of any kind, whether hazardous or non-hazardous, must,
where not subject
to authorisation, be registered with the
competent authorities.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.03.1991, p. 32.

Action brought on 21 June 2003 by Ireland against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-271/03)

(2003/C 200/31)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 21 June 2003 by Ireland, represented by
D.J. O'Hagan, acting as agent, assisted by P. Gallagher SC,
the
P. McGarry, Barrister and J. Buttimore of
Attorney General, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

the Office of

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

a)

declare the action admissible;

b)

annul Commission Decision C(2003)1084 reducing assis-
tance granted from the European Regional Development
Find (ERDF)
to the Global Grant Scheme for Private
Sector Tourism and Development, Operational Programme
in Ireland
for Tourism (1989-1993) sub-programme 2,
under Commission Decision C89(2258/7) of 21 December
1989;

c)

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceed-
ings.