Case C-185/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage lodged on 29 April 2008 — Latchways plc and Eurosafe Solutions BV v Kedge Safety Systems BV and Consolidated Nederland BV
Date: 2008-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European standard, building, construction policy, interpretation of the law, safety standard, technical regulations

C 197/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2008

3. In a situation in which the previous circumstances, on the
basis of which the person concerned was granted refugee
status, have ceased to exist, are new, different circumstances
founding persecution to be

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank
's-Gravenhage lodged on 29 April 2008 — Latchways plc
and Eurosafe Solutions BV v Kedge Safety Systems BV and
Consolidated Nederland BV

(a) measured against the standard of probability applied for
recognising refugee status, or is another standard to be
applied in favour of the person concerned, and/or

(b) assessed having regard to the relaxation of the burden of

proof under Article 4(4) of Directive 2004/83?

(Case C-185/08)

(2008/C 197/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

(1) OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.

Referring court

Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
finanzhof (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2008 — Glaxco
Wellcome GmbH & Co v Finanzamt München II

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Latchways plc and Eurosafe Solutions BV

(Case C-182/08)

(2008/C 197/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Glaxco Wellcome GmbH & Co.

Defendant: Finanzamt München II

Question referred

Do Article 52 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 43 EC) or
Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) preclude legis-
lation of a Member State which, in the framework of a national
system of corporation tax credits, excludes the reduction in the
value of shares as a result of a profits distribution from the basis
of assessment for that tax when a taxpayer who is entitled to a
corporation tax credit has acquired shares in a company which
is fully taxable from a shareholder who is not entitled to a tax
credit, whereas had the acquisition taken place from a share-
holder who was entitled to a tax credit such a reduction in value
would have reduced the basis of assessment for the tax of the
purchaser?

Defendants: Kedge
Nederland BV

Safety

Systems BV and Consolidated

Questions referred

1. Do Class A 1 anchor devices within the meaning of
European standard EN 795 (which are intended to remain in
position permanently) fall exclusively within the scope of
Directive 89/106/EEC (1)?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, do these
anchor devices — possibly,
in that case, as an item of
personal protective equipment — fall within the scope of
Directive 89/686/EEC (2)?

3. If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the negative, is it
necessary, in the light of Annex II to Directive 89/686/EEC,
in particular point 3.1.2.2 thereof, to assess whether personal
protective equipment that is covered by that directive by
itself fulfils the basic requirements of that directive, or is it
necessary also to consider whether the anchor device to
which the protective equipment concerned is connected is
safe in the foreseeable conditions of use, as defined in
Annex II?

4. Does Community

law and,

[Decision]
93/465/EEC (3) allow for
the option of applying a CE
marking to an anchor device as referred to in Question 1 as
evidence of compliance with Directive 89/686/EEC and/or
Directive 89/106/EEC?

in particular,

5. If the answer to Question 4 is either wholly or partly in the
affirmative, what procedure(s) should be followed in deter-
mining compliance in respect of Directive 89/686/EEC
and/or Directive 89/106/EEC?

6. Is European standard EN 795 to be regarded — in respect of
anchor devices as referred to in Question 1 — as Com-
munity law to be interpreted by the Court of Justice of the
European Communities?

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/7

7. If the answer to Question 6 is in the affirmative, is European
standard EN 795 to be interpreted as meaning that
the
anchor device referred to in Question 1 must be tested (by a
Notified Body) under foreseeable conditions of use (such as
external
the
anchor device itself and/or of the materials by which it is
attached, or the roof construction)?

temperatures, weather conditions, ageing of

8. If the answer to Question 7 is in the affirmative, must the
in accordance with user restrictions

tests be carried out
(referred to in the instructions for use)?

(1) Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approx-
imation of
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
Member States relating to construction products (OJ 1989 L 40,
p. 12).

(2) Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approx-
imation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protec-
tive equipment (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 18).

(3) Council Decision 93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 concerning the
modules for the various phases of the conformity assessment proce-
dures and the rules for the affixing and use of the CE conformity
marking, which are intended to be used in the technical harmonisa-
tion directives (OJ 1993 L 220, p. 23).

Action brought on 6 May 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-188/08)

(2008/C 197/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

waters to fully and correctly transpose into its domestic
legislation the requirements of Articles 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13 and 14 of the said Directive and under the Treaty
establishing the European Community.

— order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the management

The Commission maintains that
in Ireland there is neither
domestic legislation nor Community legislation which provides
for
in accordance with the Directive, of
domestic waste waters disposed of through septic tanks and
other individual treatment systems outside of larger agglomera-
tions.

In the absence of other legislation, Ireland is obliged to trans-
pose and apply the requirements of the Directive to such waste
Ireland has not transposed nor claimed to
waters. However,
have translposed these requirements. Furthermore,
it has not
complied with those requirements in practice. More particularly,
Ireland has not, for the waste waters in question:

— transposed the provisions of Article 4 of

the Directive.
Transposition of Article 4 is important because it sets out
environmental objectives
should be pursued and
that
respected in relation to other duties of the Directive. The
Commission submits that there is also a failure to comply
with Article 4 in practice in the Lough Leane catchment,
this is borne out by the evidence it has adduced of the envir-
onmental harm resulting from a failure to control adequately
septic tanks.

— transposed the provisions of Article 7 of

the Directive.
Article 7 is important because it inter alia provides for terri-
tory-wide forward planning of arrangements for disposal of
waste at suitable sites in order to avoid environmental harm.
Apart from failing to transpose Article 7 of the Directive,
Ireland has in practice failed to put in place plans that satisfy
the requirements of Article 7 in relation to septic tanks and
other individual treatment systems.

— transposed the provisions of Article 8 of

the Directive.
Article 8 is important because it stipulates that waste is
disposed of in accordance with the Directive. There is also a
failure to comply with Article 8 in practice in Ireland, since
Ireland does not ensure that domestic waste waters are
disposed of in accordance with the Directive.

— Declare that in so far as domestic waste waters disposed of
through septic tanks and other individual treatment systems
in the countryside are not, for purposes of Article 2(1)(b) of
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1)
as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March
1991 (2), covered by other Community or Irish legislation,
Ireland has, by failing in respect of the said domestic waste

— transposed the provisions of Article 9 of

the Directive.
Article 9 is important since it provides for a formal prior
approval with environmental safeguards of a waste disposal
operation. Such controls as Ireland applies in practice to
septic tanks and other individual treatment systems are not
equivalent and there is therefore a failure in practice to
comply with Article 9.