Case C-44/05: Action brought on 3 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2005-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, airport, environmental protection, harmonisation of standards, noise level, noise protection

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/15

Action brought on 3 February 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

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

(Case C-44/05)

(2005/C 82/31)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 February
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by E. Traversa and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by not having adopted the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2002/30/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules
and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-
related operating restrictions at Community airports or, in
any case, by not having communicated such measures to
the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into
national law expired on 28 September 2003.

(1) OJ L 85 of 28 March 2002, p. 40.

Action brought on 7 February 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-47/05)

(2005/C 82/32)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Justice of

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 7
February 2005 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by R. Lyal, Legal Adviser, and L. Escobar
Guerrero, of the Commission's legal service, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

1. declare that, by having adopted and maintained in force, in
the matter of life insurance and pensions, a system under
which tax concessions (Article 48 of Law 40/1998) are
applicable solely to contributions paid under contracts
concluded with undertakings established in Spain but not to
those paid under contracts concluded with undertakings
formed in other Member States, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 39, 43, 49 and
56 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and
Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement;

2. order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The fact that tax treatment differs by reference to whether
pension plans are taken out with undertakings established in
Spain or with undertakings formed in other Member States is a
restriction on the fundamental freedoms laid down by the EC
Treaty (Articles 39, 43, 49 and 56 EC and Articles 28, 31, 36
and 40 of the EEA Agreement).

The requirement for establishment, in accordance with national
law, which Spanish fiscal
legislation imposes on pension
managers, constitutes, as well as discrimination restricting the
right of undertakings formed in the European Union or the
EEA to provide their services freely to persons resident in
Spain, a clear restriction on the freedom of movement of
workers and of capital and on the freedom of establishment.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
Nürnberg-Fürth by order of that court of 28 January 2005
in Adam Opel AG v Autec AG (intervener in support of
the defendant: Deutscher Verband der Spielwaren-Indus-
trie e.V.)

(Case C-48/05)

(2005/C 82/33)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth
(Germany) of 28 January 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 8 February 2005, in the proceedings between Adam Opel
AG and Autec AG (intervener in support of the defendant:
Deutscher Verband der Spielwaren-Industrie e.V.) for a preli-
minary ruling on the following questions of the interpretation
of Article 5(l)(a) and Article 6(l)(b) of the First Directive of the
Council No 89/104/EC (1) of 21 December 1988 to approxi-
mate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks: