Case C-104/06: Action brought on  22 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden
Date: 2006-04-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Sweden, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, capital gains tax, housing, purchase, residence, sale

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.

C 96/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.4.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Swedish income tax law contains provisions on deferred taxa-
tion on the sale of private immovable property and the rights
thereto. A taxpayer may defer taxation if he/she accounts for
capital gains on the basis of a sale which includes a permanent
dwelling in Sweden and has acquired or intends to acquire a
replacement property in Sweden and has moved or intends to
move into the replacement property. However, no deferral of
taxation is permitted if the properties sold and newly acquired
are situated outside Swedish territory. The above conditions
constitute a clear obstacle to the exercise of the fundamental
freedoms enshrined in the EC Treaty and the EEA Agreement.

The Swedish rules are not appropriate to ensure the coherence
the Swedish tax system since, with regard to a single
of
taxpayer, there is no direct link between the fiscal advantage
(the deferred taxation) and the compensation for that advantage
through a tax levy within the framework of the same taxation.
In all the circumstances, the Swedish rules are disproportionate
to the aim they seek to achieve.

Action brought on 27 February 2006 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Slovak Republic

(Case C-114/06)

(2006/C 96/14)

(Language of the case: Slovak)

An action against the Slovak Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 February
2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by G. Zavvos and Tomáš Kukal, 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 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability
of the trans-European high-speed rail system (1), or alterna-
tively by failing to notify those measures to the Commis-
sion, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

2. order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

The period for adopting measures to transpose the directive
expired on 1 May 2004.

(1) OJ L 235 of 17. 9. 1996, p. 6.

Action brought on 2 March 2006 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-123/06)

(2006/C 96/15)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 March
2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by Dominique Maidani and Georgios Zavvos, Legal
Advisers in its Legal Service, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not noti-
fying to the Commission, the necessary laws, regulations
and administrative provisions in order to comply with
Directive 2001/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and
winding up of credit institutions, the Hellenic Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the case in point, Article 34 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the
European Parliament and of
the Council of 4 April 2001
provides that Member States are to bring into force the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with the directive by 5 May 2004 at the latest and are immedi-
ately to inform the Commission thereof.

(1) OJ No L 125, 5.5.2001, p. 15.