Case C-179/06: Action brought on  5 April 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, environmental law, impact study, protected area, town-planning scheme

C 143/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.6.2006

Form of order sought

— a declaration that, by having failed to adopt within the
period prescribed all the measures necessary to comply
with Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission's decisions of 20
December 2001 on a State aid scheme implemented by
Spain in 1993 for certain newly established firms in Álava,
Vizcaya and Guipúzcoa, documents Nos C(2001) 4448
fin, (1) C(2001) 4475 fin (2) and C(2001) 4478 fin, (3) or, in
any case, by having failed to communicate such provisions
to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
fulfil its obligations under those decisions and under the EC
Treaty;

— an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs.

2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard
to the further opening to competition of Community postal
services, (1) the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the directive;

— order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for
national law expired on 31 December 2002.

transposing the directive into

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 176 of 5.7.2002, p. 21.

The period fixed in Article 4 of the decisions for the Kingdom
of Spain to communicate the implementation measures expired
on 1 March 2002 without the Commission's having received
any communication in that regard.

(1) OJ L 77 of 24 March 2003, p. 1
(2) OJ L 40 of 14 February 2003, p. 11
(3) OJ L 17 of 22 January 2003, p. 20

Action brought on 5 April 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Estonia

Action brought on 5 April 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-179/06)

(2006/C 143/49)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case C-178/06)

(2006/C 143/48)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia, Agent)

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by K. Simonsson and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to notify the laws and regulations
law Directive

transposing into national

necessary for

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, as the municipality of Altamura and the
region of Apulia approved, with effect
from December
2000, an alteration to a development plan comprising a
series of industrial construction operations liable to have a
significant impact on SPA and SCIp IT 9120007 Murgia
Alta without having first carried out an impact assessment
procedure at least in respect of the impact on the SPA, the
its obligations under
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
Article 6(3) and 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC; (1)

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/27

Pleas in law and main arguments

Question referred

The alteration to the development plan concerning the
construction operations falling within SPA and SCIp IT 912007
Murgia Alta was not the subject of an appropriate assessment
of the impact on the area, as provided for in Article 6(3) of
Directive 92/43/EEC.

The resolution of
the municipality of Altamura and the
Regional Executive, which approved the said alteration to the
development plan, is in contravention of the abovementioned
in that, although the said alteration
Community provisions,
was liable to have a significant impact on SPA and SCIp IT
9120007 Murgia Alta, an impact assessment procedure was not
carried out.

The reason stated for the absence of an assessment clearly does
not comply with Community law. The reason given is that the
size of the construction operations fell below the thresholds set
by the domestic law implementing Directives 85/337/EEC, as
amended, (2) and 92/43/EEC. However, under Article 6(3) of
Directive 92/43/EEC ‘any plan or project’ likely to have a signif-
icant impact on the site must be subject to an impact assess-
ment, and this obligation is not limited to a list of projects the
size of which exceeds the threshold set.

(1) OJ L 206, p. 7.
(2) OJ L 175, p. 40.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour adminis-
trative lodged on 10 April 2006 — État du grand-duché de
Luxembourg v Hans Ulrich Lakebrink and Katrin Peters-
Lakebrink

(Case C-182/06)

(2006/C 143/50)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative (Luxembourg)

Is Article 39 EC to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes
national rules, such as those introduced in the Grand-Duchy of
Luxembourg by Article 157ter of the Law on Income Tax,
under which a Community national not resident in Luxem-
bourg who receives
income of Luxembourg origin from
employment, which constitutes the major part of his taxable
resources, cannot rely on his negative rental income relating to
property situated in another Member State,
in this case
Germany, which he does not himself occupy, for the purposes
of the determination of the tax rate applicable to his Luxem-
bourg income?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
München lodged on 13 April 2006 — RUMA GmbH v
Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg

(Case C-183/06)

(2006/C 143/51)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RUMA GmbH

Defendant: Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg

Question referred

Is the Combined Nomenclature (CN), in the version of Annex I
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 (1) of 11
September 2003 amending Annex I
to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature
and on the Common Customs Tariff,
to be interpreted as
meaning that keypads which have non-conductive contact pins
on the underside are to be classified under heading 8538?

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État du grand-duché de Luxembourg

(1) OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1.

Defendants: Hans Ulrich Lakebrink and Katrin Peters-Lakebrink