Case C-99/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts Stuttgart by order of that court of  7 February 2006  in Raiffeisenbank Mutlangen eG v Roland Schabel, other parties: 1. President of the Landgericht Unkel (Regional Court, Unkel), 2. District Auditor Stiglmair
Date: 2006-04-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil servant, income in addition to normal pay, indirect tax, interpretation of the law, notary, tax on capital, tax system

C 96/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.4.2006

Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

1. Does Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 (1) constitute an
exclusion, with the consequence that the burden of proof in
respect of the requirements of Article 5(3) of Regulation No
615/98 is on the Principal Customs Office?

(Case C-91/06)

(2006/C 96/09)

(Language of the case: German)

Justice of

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 14
February 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by B. Schima and F. Simonetti, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of
certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) or by
failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission,
the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
its obligations
under Article 13(1) of that directive;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2001/42 into
national law expired on 21 July 2004.

(1) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg by order of that court of 23 January 2006 in
Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-
Jonas

(Case C-96/06)

(2006/C 96/10)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg
(Germany) of 23 January 2006, received at the Court Registry
on 17 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings between Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH and Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Jonas on the following questions:

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative: In order
to conclude under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98
that the directive has not been complied with, is it necessary
to have proof that there has been an infringement of Direc-
tive 91/628/EEC (2)
in the particular case, or does the
competent authority discharge its burden of proof if it relies
on and provides evidence of circumstances which in an
overall view indicate a material probability that the directive
on the protection of animals during transport has not been
complied with (also) in relation to the export consignment
in question?

3. Irrespective of the answers to questions 1 and 2: May the
competent authority refuse to pay (all of) the export refund
to the exporter under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98
where there are no indications that the (potential) infringe-
ment of Directive 91/628/EEC has in fact been deleterious
to the wellbeing of the animals during transport in relation
to the export consignment in question?

(1) OJ L 82 of 19.3.1998, p. 19.
(2) OJ L 240 of 11.12.1991, p. 17.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gerichts Stuttgart by order of that court of 7 February
2006 in Raiffeisenbank Mutlangen eG v Roland Schabel,
other
Landgericht
Unkel (Regional Court, Unkel), 2. District Auditor Stiglmair

President

parties:

the

of

1.

(Case C-99/06)

(2006/C 96/11)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Oberlandesgerichts Stuttgart
of 7 February 2006, received at the Court Registry on 21
February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Raiffeisenbank Mutlangen eG and Roland Schabel,
other
Landgericht
President
Unkel (Regional Court, Unkel), 2. District Auditor Stiglmair on
the following question:

parties:

the

of

1.

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/7

that directive where,

Is Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council
Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (1), to be interpreted as
meaning that the charges of a notary employed as a civil
servant for the drawing up of a notarially attested act recording
a transaction covered by that directive constitute taxes for the
purposes of
first, under the relevant
national legislation, also notaries who are civil servants may be
authorised to practise and are themselves owed the charges in
question, and, second, although the notaries who are employed
as civil servants have to remit to the Treasury, out of the fees
for the recording of transactions in matters of company law
for
covered by that directive, only a fixed reimbursement
expenses in the amount of 15 % of those fees, they must, in
to the Treasury charges
respect of other activities,
remit
exceeding a (fixed) reimbursement
for expenses, which the
State uses to fund its activities.

minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (1)
or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions
to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2003/9 into
national law expired on 6 February 2005.

(1) OJ L 156, p. 23.

(1) OJ L 31, 06.02.2003, p. 18

Action brought on 21 February 2006 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Sweden

(Case C-102/06)

(Case C-104/06)

(2006/C 96/13)

(2006/C 96/12)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

(Language of the case: German)

Justice of

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the European Communities on 21
the Court of
February 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by C. O'Reilly and W. Bogensberger, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down

Justice of

An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 22
February 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by L. Ström van Lier and R. Lyal, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force tax legis-
lation according to which deferred taxation on capital gains
which arise on the sale of owner-occupied property when
the taxable person acquires a replacement property is
permitted only if
the property sold and the property
acquired are both within Swedish territory, the Kingdom of
Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18,
39, 43 and 56(1) EC and Articles 28, 31 and 40 EEA.

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