Case C-190/04 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2004 by Graham French, John Neiger and Michael Leighton against the order made on 20 February 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-319/03 between Graham French, John Steven Neiger, Michael Leighton, John Frederick Richard Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, General Court (EU), United Kingdom, appeal, audit, insurance occupation, law of obligations, preliminary ruling procedure

12.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/7

2. Is Article 20 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning
that the adjustment of deductions in accordance with that
article is applicable even where the capital goods, in this
case real property, were first used in non-taxable activity, in
which case an initial deduction could not have been made
at all, and only later in taxable activity during the adjust-
ment period ?

2. If the two-month time-limit is mandatory and at the expiry
of that period the authority to which a request for informa-
tion was addressed has not taken a decision, what is the
‘decision’ referred to at the end of Article 4 of the Directive
against which a judicial or administrative review may be
sought
legal
‘in accordance with the relevant national
system’ ?

3. May the second subparagraph of Article 13(C) of the Direc-
tive be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may
restrict the right to deduct for acquisitions relating to real
property investments in the manner laid down in the
Finnish Arvonlisäverolaki, where the right
is
to deduct
excluded altogether in situations such as the present one ?

4. May the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Direc-
tive be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may
restrict the right to deduct for acquisitions relating to real
property investments in the manner laid down in the
Finnish Arvonlisäverolaki, where the right
is
to deduct
excluded altogether in situations such as the present one ?

(1) Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
the laws of
the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ L 145 of 13.6.77, p. 1).

(Belgium)

Reference for a preliminary ruling brought on 1 April
2004 by judgment of the administrative section of the
Conseil d'Etat
in the case of P. Housieaux
against the Délégués du Conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-
Capitale, supported by the Société de développement
régional de Bruxelles (SDRB), SA Batipont Immobilier
(BPI) and SA Immomills L. de Waele Development
(ILDWD)

(Case C-186/04)

(2004/C 156/14)

A reference for a preliminary ruling was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 April 2004
by judgment of the administrative section of the Conseil d'Etat
in the case of P. Housieaux against the Délégués du Conseil de
la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, supported by the Société de
régional de Bruxelles (SDRB), SA Batipont
développement
Immobilier (BPI) and SA Immomills L. de Waele Development
(ILDWD).

The administrative section of the Conseil d'Etat asks the Court
to rule on the following questions:

1. Is the two-month period in Article 3(4) of Council Directive
90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to
information on the environment (1) a non-mandatory time-
limit – that is to say, merely indicatory for the authority to
which a request for information is addressed, or is it a
mandatory time-limit with which that authority must
comply ?

3. Do Articles 3(4) and 4 of the Directive prohibit a ‘relevant
national legal system’ from interpreting a failure to respond
on the part of the authority to which a request for informa-
tion is referred – a failure to respond which continues
throughout the two-month period referred to in Article 3(4)
of the Directive – as a decision implicitly refusing that
request, a decision for which no reasons are thus given but
which may be the subject matter of the judicial or adminis-
trative review provided for in Article 4 ?

4. If the two-month period referred to in Article 3(4) of the
Directive is a non-mandatory time-limit, do Articles 3(4)
and 4 of the Directive preclude a ‘national
legal system’
from providing that the person requesting information may
give the authority notice to respond to his request for infor-
mation within a certain period, failing which the persistent
failure by the authority to respond will be deemed to be an
implicit decision to refuse to communicate the information,
which can then be the subject matter of an administrative
judicial review ?

(1) OJ L 158 of 23.06.1990, p. 56.

Appeal brought on 23 April 2004 by Graham French, John
Neiger and Michael Leighton against the order made on 20
February 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in case T-319/03
between Graham French,
John Steven Neiger, Michael
Leighton, John Frederick Richard Pascoe, Richard Mick-
lethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait and the Council of
the European Union and the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-190/04 P)

(2004/C 156/15)

An appeal against the order made on 20 February 2004 by the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in case T-319/03 between Graham French, John
Steven Neiger, Michael Leighton,
John Frederick Richard
Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait and
the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the
European Communities, was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 23 April 2004 by
Graham French, John Neiger and Michael Leighton, represented
by J.S. Barnett, Solicitor-Advocate.

C 156/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.6.2004

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

1) set aside the order;

the directive, namely the agglomerations having an ‘EH’
(habitat equivalent) higher than 10 000 units which discharge
their water into recipient waters considered to be sensitive
areas.

2) grant the relief sought by the Appellants in the form of the

draft order annexed to the Application; alternatively

3) remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any

event

4) order the Defendants to pay the Appellants' costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Appellants contend that the Court of First Instance erred in
law when it found that, as regards the Defendants' allegedly
unlawful conduct, they (the Applicants) did not specify the
primary rule of law which the Defendants are alleged to have
broken or infringed. The Appellants submit that the Defen-
dants' failure was set out clearly in their application.

Action brought on 26 April 2004 against the French
European
Republic

the

by

of

the Commission
Communities

(Case C-191/04)

(2004/C 156/16)

An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities on 26 April 2004 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by A. Bordes and G.
Valero Jordana, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against the French Republic.

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

1. Declare that, by not providing the information to be
collected by 31 December 1999 by the competent authori-
ties or the appropriate bodies as part of the monitoring of
waste discharges and sludges introduced by Article 15 of
Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1), with respect
to the
agglomerations concerned by the 31 December 1998 time-
limit, within six months of the Commission's request of 18
December 2000, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 15(4) of that directive.

2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

The French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation to provide
the Commission with the information pertaining to the moni-
toring situation as at 31 December 1999 for the water of the
agglomerations concerned by an initial time-limit laid down in

(1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21.05.1991 concerning urban

waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135 of 30.05.1991, p. 40)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de cassa-
tion (France), 1ère chambre civile, by order of that court
of 17 February 2004,
in the case of Société Lagardère
Active Broadcast, as assignee from Europe 1 communica-
tion SA, against Société pour la perception de la rému-
nération équitable (SPRE) and Gesellschaft zur Verwer-
tung von Leisungsschutzrechten MBG, SARL (GVL), inter-
vener: Compagnie européenne de radiodiffusion et de télé-
vision Europe 1 SA (CERT)

(Case C-192/04)

(2004/C 156/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Cour de cassation (France),
1ère chambre civile, of 17 February 2004, received at the
Court Registry on 26 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Société Lagardère Active Broadcast, as assignee
from Europe 1 communication SA, against Société pour la
perception de la rémunération équitable (SPRE) and Gesellschaft
zur Verwertung von Leisungsschutzrechten MBG, SARL (GVL),
intervener: Compagnie européenne de radiodiffusion et de télé-
vision Europe 1 SA (CERT), on the following questions:

1. Where a broadcasting company transmitting from the terri-
tory of one Member State uses, in order to extend the trans-
mission of its programmes to a part of its national audience,
a transmitter situated nearby on the territory of another
Member State, of which its majority-held subsidiary is the
licence holder, does the legislation of the latter State govern
the single equitable fee which is required by Article 8(2) of
Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 (1) and Article
4 of Directive 93/83 of 27 September 1993 (2) and payable
in respect of the phonograms published for commercial
purposes included in the programmes retransmitted?

2. If so,

is the original broadcasting company entitled to
deduct the sums paid by its subsidiary from the fee claimed
from it in respect of all the transmissions received on the
national territory?

(1) Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental
right and lending right and on certain rights relating to copyright in
the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61).

(2) Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the co-ordi-
nation of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to
copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmis-
sion (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15).