Case C-513/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechthof Herzogenbusch by order of that Court of 5 November 2003 in the case of M.E.A. van Hilten-van der Heĳden against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen Buitenland te Heerlen
Date: 2004-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of capital, interpretation of the law, trade restriction

C 85/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.4.2004

case, namely the existence of a causal link between the
alleged conduct and the harm pleaded. As the Court of
First Instance observed, it is not disputed that there must
be a direct link of cause and effect between the wrongful
act of the institution concerned and the harm pleaded, a
causal link in respect of which applicants bear the burden
of proof. In addition, that causal
link relates to the
decisive cause of the harm. None the less, the Court of
First Instance confused decisive cause and exclusive cause.
It has never been claimed that the Commission’s conduct
was the exclusive cause of the attack of 27 March 2002.
On the other hand, it was amply demonstrated in the
application that the Commission’s conduct was a decisive
cause. In attempting to show that the alleged conduct
was not the exclusive cause of the harm pleaded the
Court of First Instance committed a manifest error of law
by which it deprived the appellants of a hearing which
they could legitimately expect.

— the Court of First Instance distorted the clear sense of the
pleas put forward by the appellants in claiming, on the
one hand, that the appellants agreed that the attack had
not been financed by the funds in question and, on the
other, that they had neither proved nor claimed that
Palestinian education was exclusively dependent on the
funds in question, merely stating that the European
Community is the Palestinians’ largest provider of funds.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechthof
Herzogenbusch by order of that Court of 5 November
2003 in the case of M.E.A. van Hilten-van der Heijden
against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/
Ondernemingen Buitenland te Heerlen

(Case C-513/03)

(2004/C 85/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Gerechthof Herzogen-
busch of 5 November 2003, received at the Court Registry on
8 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
M.E.A. van Hilten-van der Heijden against Inspecteur van
de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen Buitneland te
Heerlen on the following questions:

1. Does Article 3(1) of the Netherlands Successiewet (1)
constitute a permitted restriction within the meaning of
Article 57(1) EC?

2. Does Article 3(1) of the Successiewet constitute a pro-
hibited means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised
restriction on the free movement of capital within the
meaning of Article 58(3) EC where applicable to a capital
movement between a Member State and a non-member
country, having regard also to the Declaration on
Article 73d of the Treaty establishing the European
Community adopted on the occasion of the signature of
the ‘Final Act and Declarations of the Intergovernmental
Conferences on the European Union’ of 7 February 1992.

(1) Law on Succession.

Action brought on 19 December 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-532/03)

(2004/C 85/18)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 19 December 2003
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by K. Wiedner, acting as agent, assisted by J. E. Flynn QC, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that, in permitting emergency ambulance services
to be provided by Dublin City Council without the
Eastern Regional Health Authority undertaking any prior
advertising, Ireland has failed to comply with its obli-
gations under the Treaty; and

2.

order Ireland to pay the Commission’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that, in the circumstances of
the case, the maintaining of the arrangement for provision of
ambulance services between Dublin City Council and the
Eastern Regional Health Authority without undertaking any
prior advertising is a breach of the free movement rules of the
Treaty (notably Articles 43 and 49) and thereby of the general
principles of Community law (notably those of transparency
and equality or non-discrimination) which are to be respected
in situations to which Community law applies.