Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2005 in Case C-335/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
Date: 2005-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, employment policy, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, national implementing measure, racial discrimination, social policy

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/5

2. Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure
the application of Articles 4, 8, 9 and 13 of Directive 75/442,
as amended by Directive 91/156, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive with respect to
the uncontrolled landfill
in Olvera, Province of Cadiz (Auton-
omous Community of Andalusia).

2. The decision referred to in Article 4 of Directive 90/313, against
which a judicial or administrative review may be sought by the
person who made the request
is the implied
refusal which arises from the failure by the public authority compe-
tent to decide on that request to respond within two months.

for information,

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.

legislation according to which,

3. Article 3(4) of Directive 90/313, in conjunction with Article 4
thereof, does not preclude, in a situation such as that in the main
proceedings, national
the
purposes of granting effective judicial protection, the failure of a
public authority to respond within a period of two months is
deemed to give rise to an implied refusal which may be the subject
of a judicial or administrative review in accordance with the
national
legal system. However, by virtue of Article 3(4) it is
unlawful for such a decision not to be accompanied by reasons
when the two-month time-limit expires. In those circumstances,
the implied refusal must be regarded as unlawful.

for

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(1) OJ C 156 of 12.06.2004.

(Second Chamber)

of 21 April 2005

in Case C-186/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d'État in Pierre Housieaux v Délégués du
conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (1)

(Directive 90/313/EEC — Freedom of access to information
on the environment — Request for information — Require-
ment to give reasons in the event of refusal — Mandatory
time-limit — Failure of a public authority to respond within
the time-limit for reply — Implied refusal — Fundamental
right to effective judicial protection)

(2005/C 171/09)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-186/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'État (Belgium), made by deci-
sion of 1 April 2004, received at the Court on 22 April 2004,
in the proceedings between Pierre Housieaux and Délégués du
conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale interested parties: —
the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris,
G. Arestis and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advo-
cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April
2005, in which it ruled:

1. The two-month time-limit laid down in Article 3(4) of Council
Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access
to information on the environment is mandatory.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 4 May 2005

in Case C-335/04: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Republic of Austria (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2000/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the period
prescribed)

(2005/C 171/10)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-335/04, Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: D. Martin and H. Kreppel) v Republic of
Austria (Agent: E. Riedl) — action for failure to fulfil obliga-
tions brought pursuant to Article 226 EC on 30 July 2004 —
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta,
President of the Chamber, P. Kūris and J. Klučka (Rapporteur),
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
judgment on 4 May 2005, in which it:

C 171/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.7.2005

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000
implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons
irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, the Republic of Austria has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.

Action brought on 14 April 2005 by the Commission of
the Kingdom of
the European Communities against

Sweden

(Case C-167/05)

(2005/C 171/11)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 April
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by L. Ström van Lier and K. Gross, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by applying internal

taxes by which beer
mainly produced in Sweden is protected indirectly to
against wine mainly imported from other Member States,
the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the second paragraph of Article 90 EC;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Alcoholic beverages are sold to the individual consumer in
Sweden via a State-owned retail trade monopoly, Systembolaget
AB. Strong beer,
in other words beer containing more than
3.5 % alcohol by volume, and wines are sold through System-

bolaget AB. Lighter wines in the middle price range are
regarded as being interchangeable with strong beer.

Beer is subject to an alcohol tax which is on average and as a
percentage is significantly lower than the equivalent tax on
wine. No ground has been put forward which justifies that
difference in that selective purchase tax. The difference in the
tax affects the price of the respective products. The difference
in price is increased by the application of VAT at the rate of
25 % to the products.

The effect of the tax on the price of the respective products is
likely to distort competition between goods and the internal
selective purchase taxes are such as to strengthen domestic
patterns of consumption, reduce potential consumption of
wine and thus they are likely to afford indirect protection to
beer to the detriment of wine.

Action brought on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-180/05)

(2005/C 171/12)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Wouter Wils, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to apply the provisions on public
lending right provided for in Council Directive 92/100/EEC
of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and
on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellec-
tual property (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of the direc-
tive;