Case C-67/06: Action brought on  6 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Date: 2006-04-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, national implementing measure, noise, noise pollution, noise protection, nuisance, pollution control measures

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/5

7. misinterpretation and misapplication of

the concept of
statement of reasons and unconsidered and illogical failure
properly to apply the relevant case-law;

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Köln by order of that court of 19 January 2006 in Planzer
Luxembourg Sàrl v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

8. misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept that a

statement of reasons should be consistent;

9. misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept that a

preparatory measure cannot be challenged;

10. misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of an

opinion;

11. misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept that a

decision that has been issued cannot be amended.

(Case C-73/06)

(2006/C 96/08)

(Language of the case: German)

Action brought on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-67/06)

(2006/C 96/07)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 February
2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by Minas Konstantinidis and Amparo Alcover San
its Legal Service, with an address for service in
Pedro, of
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 laws, regulations and adminis-
trative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2002/49/EC (1) of
the
Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and
management of environmental noise, the Hellenic Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

the European Parliament and of

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic
law expired on 18 July 2004.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Köln of 19
January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 8 February
2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Planzer Luxembourg Sàrl and Bundeszentralamt für Steuern on
the following questions:

1. Does an undertaking's certificate according to the specimen
form in Annex B to the Eighth Council Directive
79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of
the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable
persons not established in the territory of the country (1)
have binding effect or create an irrefutable assumption that
the undertaking is established in the State issuing the certifi-
cate?

2. If the first question should be answered in the negative:

Should the term 'business' in Article 1(1) of the Thirteenth
Directive be construed as meaning the place where the
company has its registered office

or should it mean the place where management decisions
are taken

or is the crucial factor the place where decisions vital to
normal everyday operations are taken?

(1) OJ No L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

(1) OJ L 331, p. 11