Case C-244/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Bavarian Higher Administrative Court) by order of that court of 19 April 2005 in Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V. v Freistaat Bayern
Date: 2005-08-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, biotope, environmental protection, interpretation of the law, protected area, protected species

C 205/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.8.2005

A) Is it possible to interpret Article 81(1) EC as meaning that
agreements between financial institutions for the exchange
of information about the solvency of their customers and
lateness of payments by them may be regarded as compa-
tible with the common market, in so far as they affect the
financial policies of the European Union and the common
credit market and have the effect of restricting competition
in the financial and credit institution sector?

B) Is it possible to interpret Article 81(3) EC as meaning that a
Member State may, by means of bodies responsible for
agreements between
overseeing competition,
financial institutions for the exchange of information about
their customers through the establishment of a credit infor-
mation register,
in so far as the creation of that register
produces benefits for consumers and users of those finan-
cial services?

authorise

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te 's-Hertogenbosch by order of that court of 31 May
2005 in G.M. van de Coevering v Rijksbelastingdienst

(Case C-242/05)

(2005/C 205/15)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogen-
bosch ('s-Hertogenbosch Regional Court of Appeal) of 31 May
2005, received at the Court Registry on 3 June 2005, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings between G.M. van de
Coevering and Roermond Customs District of the Rijksbelas-
tingdienst on the following question:

Does Community law,
in particular the freedom to provide
services as set out in Articles 49 EC to 55 EC, preclude the
Netherlands from charging a natural person resident in the
Netherlands — who leases in another Member State, under a
leasing contract with a lessor, a passenger car which is not
registered in the register pursuant to the Wegenverkeerswet
1994 and on which no passenger car and motorcycle tax
the Wet BPM (1) has been paid —
under Article 1(2) of
passenger car and motorcycle tax under Article 1(5) of the Wet
BPM on commencement of use in the Netherlands by that

the highway within the meaning of

passenger car of
the
Wegenverkeerswet 1994, where the full amount of the tax is
chargeable irrespective of the period of the lease and the dura-
tion of the use of the highway in the Netherlands and where
that natural person has no right at all to an exemption or a
refund?

(1) 1992 Law on passenger car and motorcycle tax.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Bavarian Higher Administrative
Court) by order of that court of 19 April 2005 in Bund
Naturschutz in Bayern e.V. v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-244/05)

(2005/C 205/16)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bayerischer Verwaltungsger-
ichtshof (Bavarian Higher Administrative Court) of 19 April
2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2005, for a
preliminary
between Bund
Naturschutz in Bayern e.V. and Freistaat Bayern on the
following question:

proceedings

ruling

the

in

1. What protection regime is required under Article 3(1) of
Directive 92/43 EEC (1) in conjunction with the sixth recital
in the preamble to that Directive in the light of the prohibi-
tion on frustrating the objectives of the Treaty laid down in
Article 10(2) of the EC Treaty (Treaty establishing the Euro-
pean Community of 25 March 1957, as most recently
amended by the 2003 EU Treaty of Accession of 16 April
2003) and following the judgment of the European Court of
Justice of 13 January 2005 in Case C-117/03 for sites which
could be designated sites of Community importance, parti-
cularly those with priority natural habitat
types and/or
priority species, before they appear on the list of sites of
Community importance adopted by the Commission of the
European Communities under the procedure provided for in
Article 21 of the Directive?

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/9

2. What is the effect on that protection regime if the said sites
already appear on the list of national recommendations
submitted to the Commission under Article 4(1) of Directive
92/43/EEC?

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Ms
Sara Pardo Quintillán and Ms Donatella Recchia, acting as
Agents, assisted by F. Louis of the Brussels bar and C. O'Daly,
Solicitor of the Law Society of Ireland, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

3. Is a national protection regime for the said sites under
the Bavarian Naturschutzgesetz (Nature
Article 48(2) of
Conservancy Law) sufficient to satisfy the requirements of
Community law under Article 3(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC
in conjunction with the sixth recital in the preamble to that
Directive in the light of the prohibition on frustrating the
objectives of the Treaty laid down in Article 10(2) of the EC
Treaty?

Article 48(2) of the Bavarian Naturschutzgesetz is worded as
follows:

‘Until such time as regulations are brought in under Part III
the institutes for nature conservation having authority under
Article 45 or agencies for the provisional safeguarding of
areas of conservation and objects meriting protection may
bring in general or specific regulations imposing the bans
on changes provided for under Part III for a period of up to
two years if it is feared that the purpose of the intended
protective measure would be adversely affected by changes;
if special circumstances so require,
the period may be
extended for a maximum of one further year. The measure
may not be brought in unless the competent institute for
nature conservation or agency instigates procedure for defi-
nitive protection at the same time or immediately there-
after.’

(1) OJ. 1992 L 206, p . 7

Action brought on 14 June 2005 by Commission of the
European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-248/05)

(2005/C 205/17)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 14 June 2005 by the

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to
comply with Articles 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 of Council Directive
80/68/EEC (1) on the protection of groundwater against
pollution caused by certain dangerous substances at Bally-
murtagh landfill
Ireland has failed to
comply with this Directive and with its obligations under
the Treaty;

(County Wicklow),

2. declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to
comply with Articles 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 13 of Council
Directive 80/68/EEC with regard to indirect discharges from
septic tanks, Ireland has failed to comply with this Directive
and with its obligations under the Treaty; and

3. order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On the basis of complaints submitted to it, the Commission
has become aware of widespread breaches of Council Directive
80/68/EEC in Ireland.

First, since 1989 Ireland has permitted a municipal landfill to
operate at Ballymurtagh, Co. Wicklow without formal authori-
zation being granted as required under Article 4(2) of Directive
80/68. As a consequence of not complying with Article 4(2),
Article 9 of the same directive was also breached. In addition,
the waste licence covering the landfill site, granted by Ireland's
Environmental Protection Agency only in 2001, infringes Arti-
cles 4, 5, 7 and 10 of Directive 80/68/EEC.

the Commission has uncovered evidence demon-
Second,
strating that
Ireland has failed to comply with Directive
80/68/EEC in relation to indirect discharges into groundwater
from septic tanks. In this regard, the Commission has investi-
gated circumstances relating to a hotel premises at Creacon
Lodge, Co. Wexford, Ireland's longstanding interpretation of
Article 5(1) of Directive 80/68/EEC and wider breaches of the
same Directive throughout the Irish countryside. Reports on
eutrophication of the Lakes of Killarney, Co. Kerry, Irish official
of Directive
water
80/778/EEC (2) on the quality of water intended for human
consumption demonstrate Ireland's failure to comply with rele-
vant provisions of Directive 80/68/EEC.

pollution

breaches

reports,

and