Judgment of the Court of 23 September 2003 in Case C-452/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Margarethe Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung (Free movement of capital — Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) — Article 40 of and Annex XII to the EEA Agreement — Prior authorisation procedure for the acquisition of agricultural and forestry plots — Admissibility — Conditions)
Date: 2003-11-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Economic Area, financial transaction, forest, interpretation of the law, ownership, price of farm land, third country

C 275/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.11.2003

2.

3.

4.

Such proof must make it possible to establish, without the
slightest ambiguity,
the compensating products have
resulted from processing of the temporary export goods.

that

It is for the national court to determine, in the light of all the
circumstances of the main proceedings, whether or not the
economic operator has adduced that proof.

If so, the amount of the import duty which would be applicable
to the temporary export goods on the basis of their correct tariff
heading may be deducted when the compensating products are
released for free circulation.

(1) OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 25 September 2003

in Case C-437/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
Directives 92/12/EEC and 92/81/EEC — Tax on lubricating
oils — Excise duty on mineral oils)

(2003/C 275/26)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-437/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and K. Gross) v Italian Republic (Agent:
I. M. Braguglia, assisted by G. Aiello): Application for a
declaration that, by retaining in force a tax on lubricating oils,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February
1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to
excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of
such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), and Article 8(1)(a) of
Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral
oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12), as amended by Council Directive
94/74/EEC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 46), the
Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Judges;
President of the Chamber, P.
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 25 September 2003, in which it:

Jann and A. Rosas,

1. Declares that, by retaining in force a tax on lubricating oils
under the first paragraph of Article 62 of Legislative Decree
No 504 of 26 October 1995, ‘Testo unico delle disposizioni
legislative concernenti le imposte sulla produzione e sui consumi
e relative sanzioni penali e amministrative’ (Consolidated Text
of Legislative Provisions relating to duties on production and
consumption and related criminal and administrative penalties)
beyond the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned
opinion, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 Feb-
ruary 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject
to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring
of such products, and Article 8(1)(a) of Council Directive 92/
81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the
structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by
Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 23 September 2003

in Case C-452/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Margarethe Ospelt and
Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung (1)

(Free movement of capital — Article 73b of the EC Treaty
(now Article 56 EC) — Article 40 of and Annex XII to the
EEA Agreement — Prior authorisation procedure for the
acquisition of agricultural and forestry plots — Admissi-
bility — Conditions)

(2003/C 275/27)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-452/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Margarethe Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung,
on the interpretation of Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 12 EC) and Articles 73b to 73d, 73f
and 73g of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC to 60 EC), the
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and
C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 September 2003, in which it has ruled:

15.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/17

1.

Rules such as those of the Vorarlberger Grundverkehrsgesetz
(Vorarlberg Land Transfer Law) of 23 September 1993, as
amended, making transactions relating to agricultural and
forestry plots subject to administrative controls must, where a
transaction is in issue between nationals of States party to the
Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992,
be assessed in the light of Article 40 of and Annex XII to the
aforementioned Agreement, which are provisions possessing the
same legal scope as that of Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now
Article 56 EC), which is identical in substance.

2. Article 73b of the Treaty in conjunction with Articles 73c,
73d, 73f and 73g of the EC Treaty (now Articles 57 EC to 60
EC) do not preclude the acquisition of agricultural land being
made subject to the grant of prior authorisation such as that
established by the VGVG. However, they do preclude such
authorisation being refused in every case in which the acquirer
does not himself farm the land concerned as part of a holding
and on which he is not resident.

(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 30 September 2003

in Case C-47/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht):
Albert Anker, Klaas Ras, Albertus Snoek v Bundesrepu-
blik Deutschland ( (1))

(Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39(4) EC —
Employment in the public service — Masters of fishing
vessels — Conferment of powers of public authority on
board — Posts reserved for nationals of the flag State)

(2003/C 275/28)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-47/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Albert Anker, Klaas Ras, Albertus
Snoek and Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the
Wasser- und Schiffahrtsdirektion Nord, on the interpretation
of Article 39(4) EC, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues and A. Rosas,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in which it
has ruled:

Article 39(4) EC must be construed as allowing a Member State to
reserve for its nationals the post of master of vessels flying its flag
(‘Kleine See-
and engaged in ‘small-scale maritime
schifffahrt’) only if the rights under powers conferred by public law
granted to masters of such vessels are in fact exercised on a regular
basis and do not represent a very minor part of their activities.

shipping’

(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 11 September 2003

in Case C-67/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 5
of Directive 79/923/EEC — Quality of shellfish waters —
Pollution-reduction programme)

(2003/C 275/29)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-67/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Shotter) v Ireland (Agent: D. O’Hagan): Application
for a declaration that, by not adopting programmes for all its
designated shellfish waters in accordance with Article 5 of
Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the
quality required of shellfish waters (OJ 1979 L 281, p. 47),
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,
the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur)
Jacobs, Advocate General;
and S. von Bahr,
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September
2003, in which it:

Judges; F.G.

1. Declares that, by not adopting programmes for all its designated
shellfish waters in accordance with Article 5 of Council Directive
79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of
shellfish waters, Ireland has failed to fulfil
its obligations
thereunder;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.