Case C-329/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by decision of that court of 28 June 2005 in Finanzamt Dinslaken v Gerold Meindl, third party: Christine Meindl-Berger
Date: 2005-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of persons, interpretation of the law, personal income tax, tax law, tax system

C 271/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.10.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that this appeal is admissible and well-founded;

2. Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28

June 2005;

3. Grant the application made at first instance seeking the
annulment of Commission Decision 2003/308/EC (1) of 2
May 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of metalaxyl
in
Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC; (2)

4. In the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First

Instance for judgment;

5. In any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs of
the present proceedings as well as those incurred as a result
of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and,
those relating to the interlocutory
where appropriate,
proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Court of First

1. First, Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA (IQV) takes the view
Instance (CFI) has distorted the
that
evidence in the proceedings in its analysis of
the legal
opinion of the Commission concerning the consequences of
the withdrawal from the procedure for the evaluation of
metalaxyl of the only notifier which submitted a complete
dossier.

2. Secondly, IQV takes the view that the CFI has erred in law
by rejecting a plea of IQV solely on the basis of an extract
from a document to which, as the CFI itself accepts, IQV
never had access during the administrative procedure.

3. Thirdly, IQV submits that the CFI erred in law by incorrectly
interpreting and applying to the present case the precau-
tionary principle and the principle of proportionality and by
upholding the decision of
the Commission originally
contested on the grounds of public health.

4. Fourthly, IQV submits that the CFI erred in law in its inter-
pretation and application to the present case of the relevant
legal framework,
in particular the provisions of Directive
91/414/EEC and Regulation 3600/92 on the procedure for
the evaluation of active substances contained in plant
protection products. In particular, IQV believes that the CFI
(i) confused the terms ‘complete dossier’ and ‘additional
information’, (ii) wrongly determined that, where there are
multiple notifiers in respect of the same substance, each
notifier must compile a complete dossier; and (iii) made an
incorrect assessment of the role of the rapporteur Member
State in the stages following preparation of the study.

5. Fifthly, IQV submits that the CFI erred in law when it held
that the Commission did not make a manifest error of
assessment by refusing to grant an extension of the time-

limit for evaluating metalaxyl. In that regard, the CFI relied
on a false premise and stated grounds which were inconsis-
tent with the extensions granted by the Commission in the
field concerned.

6. Sixthly, IQV considers that the CFI gave contradictory and
anomalous grounds for rejecting a plea of IQV on the basis
of reasons for the decision which do not actually appear in
the contested decision.

7. Finally,

the CFI

IQV considers that

infringed provisions
governing the procedure by failing to have regard to part of
the written submissions of
for the
Hearing drawn up by the Judge-Rapporteur, without giving
any grounds for so doing in the judgment.

IQV in the Report

(1) OJ L 113 of 7.5.2003, p. 8.
(2) OJ L 230 of 19.8.1991, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
nanzhof by decision of that court of 28 June 2005 in
Finanzamt Dinslaken v Gerold Meindl, third party: Chris-
tine Meindl-Berger

(Case C-329/05)

(2005/C 271/30)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Bundesfinanzhof
pean Communities by decision of
(Germany) of 28 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on
2 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Finanzamt Dinslaken and Gerold Meindl, third party:
Christine Meindl-Berger, on the following question:

Is there an infringement of Article 43 of the Treaty establishing
the European Communities when a resident taxpayer is refused
joint assessment to income tax with his spouse who lives in
Austria, from whom he is not separated, on the ground that
that spouse obtained both more than 10 % of joint income and
more than DEM 24 000, when that
income is tax-free in
Austria?