Case C-184/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 16 April 2004 in the case of Uudenkaupungin kaupunki
Date: 2004-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, VAT, intermediate goods, interpretation of the law, real property, tax law, tax relief, town

C 156/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.6.2004

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht (Germany), by order of that court of 28
January 2004 in the case of Prof. Dr. Franz Marhold v
Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-178/04)

(2004/C 156/11)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
(Federal Administrative Court) (Germany), received at the Court
Registry on 15 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Prof Dr Franz Marhold against Land Baden-Württemberg on
the following question:

In the case of an EU national who, as a professor at a
German university, had civil servant status in a German
Land and on that account was in receipt of a special allow-
ance under the Gesetz über die Gewährung einer jährlichen
Sonderzuwendung (Law on the grant of an annual special
allowance, ‘SZuwG’) but before 31 March of the following
year accepted an appointment with a university in another
Member State and entered into a public law employment
relationship with that other Member State,
is Paragraph
3(5)(1) of the SZuwG, under which a person leaving before
the new
31 March may retain the allowance only if
employment relationship is an employment relationship
under German law, inapplicable?

in Article 36 of Legislative Decree No 165 of 30 March
2001 which do not determine ‘under what conditions fixed-
term employment contracts or relationships shall be deemed
to be contracts or relationships of indefinite duration’, and
in fact contain an absolute prohibition from the outset on
the establishment of employment relationships of indefinite
duration resulting from abuse relating to the use of fixed-
term contracts and relationships?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, in
view of the expiry of the time-limit for its implementation,
must Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (and
in particular Clause 5 of the Annex thereto) and the applic-
able principles of Community law be considered, also in the
light of Legislative Decree No 368/2001 and particularly
Article 5 thereof, which provides as a usual consequence of
abuse of fixed-term contracts or relationships for conversion
to a relationship of indefinite duration, to confer on indivi-
duals an actual right, which may be exercised immediately,
in accordance with the national law most relevant to the
present case (Legislative Decree No 368/2001) to recogni-
tion of the existence of an employment relationship of inde-
finite duration?

3. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative and
the second question in the negative, in view of the expiry of
the time-limit for its implementation, must Council Direc-
tive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (and in particular Clause
5 of the Annex thereto) and the applicable principles of
Community law be considered to confer on individuals a
right to reparation for any loss or damage caused by the
failure of the Italian Republic to adopt appropriate measures
to prevent abuse relating to the use of fixed-term contracts
and/or relationships with employers in the public sector?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Genova (Italy) by order of that court of 15 March 2004 in
the case of Andrea Vassallo against Azienda Ospedaliera
Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche Universitarie
Convenzionate

(Case C-180/04)

(2004/C 156/12)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale di Genova (Italy)
of 15 March 2004, received at the Court Registry on 16 April
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Andrea Vassallo
against Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di Genova e
Cliniche Universitarie Convenzionate on the following ques-
tions:

1. In view of the principles of non-discrimination and effec-
tiveness, having regard in particular to the measures taken
by Italy in relation to employment relationships with non-
public-sector
Directive
1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (Article 1, and Clauses 1(b)
and 5 of the ETUC-UNICE-CEEP framework agreement on
fixed-term work set out in the directive) be interpreted as
meaning that it precludes national provisions such as those

employers, must

Council

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein
hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 16 April 2004 in
the case of Uudenkaupungin kaupunki

(Case C-184/04)

(2004/C 156/13)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Korkein hallinto-oikeus
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 16 April 2004, received at
the Court Registry on 19 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Uudenkaupungin kaupunki on the following
questions:

1. Is Article 20 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to be interpreted as
meaning that the adjustment of deductions in accordance
with that article is mandatory for Member States in the case
of capital goods unless it follows otherwise from Article
20(5)?

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.