Case C-186/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling brought on 1 April 2004 by judgment of the administrative section of the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium) 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)
Date: 2004-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, action brought before an administrative court, environmental protection, interpretation of the law, legal action, national law, public administration, right to information

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.