Case C-182/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative, Luxembourg) — État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg v Hans Ulrich Lakebrink, Katrin Peters-Lakebrink (Article 39 EC — Income tax payable by non residents — Calculation of tax rate — Properties in another Member State — Negative rental income not taken into account)
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, residence, tax on income

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/7

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 July 2007
— Commission of the European Communities v United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-155/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
96/29/Euratom — Protection of the health of workers and the
general public against the dangers from ionising radiation —
Failure to transpose fully within the prescribed period)

(2007/C 211/11)

Language of the case: English

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2007
(reference
a preliminary ruling from the Cour
administrative, Luxembourg) — État du Grand-Duché de
Katrin
Luxembourg

Lakebrink,

for

v

Hans
Peters-Lakebrink

Ulrich

(Case C-182/06) (1)

(Article 39 EC — Income tax payable by non residents —
Calculation of tax rate — Properties in another Member State
— Negative rental income not taken into account)

(2007/C 211/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Patakia and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Referring court

Cour administrative, Luxembourg

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (represented by: C. White, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to
adopt all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 54 of
Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down
the health of
basic safety standards for
workers and the general public against the dangers arising from
ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) — Absence of provi-
sions enabling the implementation of all appropriate interven-
tion in all situations leading to lasting exposure resulting from
the after-effects of a radiological emergency or a past or old
practice or work activity

the protection of

Operative part of the judgment

1. By not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions necessary to allow for appro-
priate intervention in all situations leading to lasting exposure to
ionising radiation resulting from the after-effects of a radiological
emergency or a past practice, the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53
of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying
down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of
workers and the general public against the dangers arising from
ionising radiation;

2. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is

ordered to pay the costs.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Defendants: Hans Ulrich Lakebrink, Katrin Peters-Lakebrink

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative
(Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Article 39 of the EC Treaty
— National income tax arrangements in respect of non-resident
Community nationals — Refusal to take account of negative
rental income relating to property situated in another Member
State for calculation of the tax rate

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 EC is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation
which does not entitle a Community national who is not resident in
the Member State in which he receives income that constitutes the
major part of his taxable income to request,
for the purposes of
determination of the tax rate applicable to the income so received, that
negative rental income relating to property situated in another Member
State which he does not himself occupy be taken into account, whilst a
resident of the first State can request that such negative rental income
be taken into account.

(1) OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.

(1) OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.