Case C-279/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Retten i Hørsholm (Denmark) by order of that court of 4 June 2004 in the case of Anklagemyndigheden against Steffen Ryborg
Date: 2004-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cultural prize, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, sparkling wine, wine

C 262/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.10.2004

Pleas in law and main arguments

The prescribed period for implementing Directive 1999/38/EC
expired on 29 April 2003.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Retten i
Hørsholm (Denmark) by order of that court of 4 June
2004 in the case of Anklagemyndigheden against Steffen
Ryborg

(Case C-279/04)

(2004/C 262/43)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by the Retten i Hørsholm (Denmark), by
order of 4 June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry
on 28 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ankla-
gemyndigheden against Steffen Ryborg.

The Retten i Hørsholm asks the Court of Justice to give a preli-
minary ruling on the following questions:

1.a. Are Article 39 EC, Article 49 EC and Article 10 EC to be
interpreted as precluding a Member State from requiring
registration of a motor vehicle when the vehicle belongs
to an employer established in a neighbouring Member
State and is used by an employee who is resident in the
first-mentioned Member State for work purposes and
during his free time in both Member States?

1.b If

in the assessment for question 1.a weight

is to be
accorded to whether any private use of the vehicle is ancil-
lary to business use, which criteria should be used by the
national court in determining whether the non-business
use of the vehicle is ancillary to the business use, when it
can be assumed that
the vehicle is used for business
purposes, see Case C-127/86 Yves Ledoux [1988] ECR
3741, paragraph 18?

Action brought on 6 September 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-382/04)

(2004/C 262/44)

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

1. Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2002/11/EC of 14 February 2002 amending
Directive 68/193/EEC on the marketing of material for the
vegetative propagation of the vine and repealing Directive
74/649/EEC (1) and, in any event, by failing to notify such
provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxem-
bourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of the directive into national
law expired on 23 February 2003.

(1) OJ L 53, of 23.2.2002, p. 20.

Action brought on 6 September 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-383/04)

(2004/C 262/45)

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 6 September 2004 by the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, represented by A. Bordes, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

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

1. Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 1999/105/EC of 22 December 1999 on the
marketing of
in any
event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commis-
sion, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive.

forest reproductive material (1) and,

2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period for the transposition of the directive into national
law expired on 1 January 2003.

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 6 September 2004 by the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, represented by A. Bordes, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(1) OJ L 11 of 15.1.2000, p. 17.