Case C-148/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Genova by order of that court of 11 February 2004 in the case of Unicredito Italiano SpA and Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, aid system, bank, interpretation of the law, redemption

C 118/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(Third Chamber)

of 1 April 2004

in Case C-229/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Monica
the Landesgericht

Herbstrith v Republic of Austria (1)

(Preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

(2004/C 118/58)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-229/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Monica Herbstrith and Republic of Austria, on,
first, the direct effect of ‘Community law concerning equal
treatment of men and women at work and, more specifically,
of Council Directive 76/207/EEC’ of 9 February 1976 on the
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
and women as regards access to employment, vocational
training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L
39, p. 40) or the circumstances in which a Member State may
be liable to pay compensation for prejudice suffered by indivi-
duals as a result of infringements of Community law, and,
second, ‘the rules on the burden of proof laid down in Article
4 of Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997’ on the
burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex (OJ
1998 L 14, p. 6) – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A.
Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, made an order on 1 April 2004, the operative part
of which is as follows:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Landesgericht für
Zivilrechtssachen Wien by order of 7 April 2003 is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 47 of 21. 2. 2004.

February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 15 March
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Deutsches Milch-
Kontor GmbH against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the
following question:

Must Regulation (EEC) No 3445/89 (1) and Regulation (EEC) No
1706/89 (2) be interpreted as meaning that cheese under
subheading 0406 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, intended
for processing in a third country and therefore to be classified
for customs tariff purposes under subheading 0406 90 11 of
the Combined Nomenclature in the version in Regulation (EEC)
No. 2886/89 (3),
is excluded from the grant of an export
refund?

(1) OJ L 336, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 166, p. 36.
(3) OJ L 282, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria Provinciale di Genova by order of that court of
11 February 2004 in the case of Unicredito Italiano SpA
and Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova (1)

(Case C-148/04)

(2004/C 118/60)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Commissione Tributaria
Provinciale di Genova (Provincial Tax Commission, Genoa) of
11 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 23 March
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Unicredito Italiano
SpA and Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova on the following
questions:

1. Is Commission Decision 2002/581/EC (2) of 11 December
2001 (OJ 2002 L 184, p. 27) invalid and incompatible with
Community law, in that the provisions of the Ciampi Law
and the related legislative decree regarding banks are
compatible with the Common Market, contrary to the
opinion of the European Commission, or do they in any
case fall within the scope of the derogations provided for by
Article 87(3)(b) and (c) of the EC Treaty?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundes-
finanzhof, by order of that court of 3 February 2004 in
the case of Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH against Haupt-
zollamt Hamburg-Jonas

2. In particular, is Article 4 of the above-mentioned decision
invalid and incompatible with Community law, in that the
Commission:

(Case C-136/04)

(2004/C 118/59)

a) failed in its duty to provide adequate reasons in accord-

ance with Article 253 of the EC Treaty; and/or

b) infringed the principle of legitimate expectations; and/or

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Bundesfinanzhof of 3
pean Communities by order of

c) infringed the principle of proportionality?

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/33

3. In any event, does a correct interpretation of Article m87 et
seq. of the EC Treaty, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC)
No 659/1999 and the general principles of Community law,
in particular those mentioned in the grounds of the order
for reference, preclude the application of Article 1 of Decree
Law 282 of 24 December 2002 (converted into Law No 27
of 21 February 2003 enacting ‘Urgent provisions regarding
Community and fiscal measures, revenues and accounting
procedures’ in Suppl. ord. No 29 to Gazzetta Ufficiale No
44 of 22 February 2003)?

(1) OJ L 184, 13.7.2002, p. 27.
(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division
(Administrative Court) by order of that court dated 17
March 2004, in the case of The Queen on the application
of 1) Alliance for Natural Health 2) Nutri-Link Ltd against
Secretary of State for Health.

(Case C-154/04)

(2004/C 118/61)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by an order of the High Court of Justice
(England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative
Court) dated 17 March 2004, which was received at the Court
Registry on 26 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of The Queen on the application of 1) Alliance for Natural
Health 2) Nutri-Link Ltd and Secretary of State for Health on
the following questions:

(g) infringement of Article 253 EC and/or the duty to give

reasons?

(1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food
supplements (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 183, 12.07.2002, p.
51).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on the
imports and repealing Regulation (EC) No

common rules for
518/94 (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 126).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division
(Administrative Court) by order of that court dated 17
March 2004, in the case of The Queen on the application
of 1) National Association of Health Stores 2) Health Food
Manufacturers Ltd against 1) Secretary of State for Health
2) National Assembly for Wales

(Case C-155/04)

(2004/C 118/62)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by an order of the High Court of Justice
(England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative
Court) dated 17 March 2004, which was received at the Court
Registry on 26 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of The Queen on the application of 1) National Associa-
tion of Health Stores 2) Health Food Manufacturers Ltd and 1)
Secretary of State for Health 2) National Assembly for Wales
on questions which are identical to those in Case C-154/04 (1).

(1) See page 34 of this Official Journal.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfi-
nanzhof, by order of that Court of 22 January 2004 in the
case of Franz Werner against Finanzamt Cloppenburg

Are Article
2002/46/EC (1) invalid by reason of:

3, 4(1)

and Article

15(b)

of Directive

(Case C-163/04)

(2004/C 118/63)

(a) the inadequacy of Article 95 as a legal basis;

(b) infringement of (i) Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty and/
or (ii) Articles 1(2) and 24(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No.
3285/94 (2);

(c) infringement of the principle of subsidiarity;

(d) infringement of the principle of proportionality;

(e) infringement of the principle of equal treatment;

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal
Finance Court) of 22 January 2004, received at the Court
Registry on 31 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Franz Werner v Finanzamt Cloppenburg on the
following question:

May the owner of an agricultural undertaking assign, by means
of a lease, land which he has previously used for transactions
subject to the flat-rate scheme for farmers (Article 25 of Sixth
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
taxes (1)) to an activity which is taxable under the normal value
added tax system and deduct input tax in respect of a poultry-
fattening house erected on the land?

(f) infringement of Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European
Union, read in the light of Article 8 of and Article 1 of the
First Protocol
to the European Convention on Human
Rights, and of the fundamental right to property and/ or
the right to carry on an economic activity;

(1) OJ L 145, p. 1.