CELEX: C2004/085/17
Language: en
Date: 2004-04-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-513/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechthof Herzogenbusch by order of that Court of 5 November 2003 in the case of M.E.A. van Hilten-van der Heĳden against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen Buitenland te Heerlen

C 85/12               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          3.4.2004
     case, namely the existence of a causal link between the            2.    Does Article 3(1) of the Successiewet constitute a pro-
     alleged conduct and the harm pleaded. As the Court of                    hibited means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised
     First Instance observed, it is not disputed that there must              restriction on the free movement of capital within the
     be a direct link of cause and effect between the wrongful                meaning of Article 58(3) EC where applicable to a capital
     act of the institution concerned and the harm pleaded, a                 movement between a Member State and a non-member
     causal link in respect of which applicants bear the burden               country, having regard also to the Declaration on
     of proof. In addition, that causal link relates to the                   Article 73d of the Treaty establishing the European
     decisive cause of the harm. None the less, the Court of                  Community adopted on the occasion of the signature of
     First Instance confused decisive cause and exclusive cause.              the ‘Final Act and Declarations of the Intergovernmental
     It has never been claimed that the Commission’s conduct                  Conferences on the European Union’ of 7 February 1992.
     was the exclusive cause of the attack of 27 March 2002.
     On the other hand, it was amply demonstrated in the
     application that the Commission’s conduct was a decisive           (1) Law on Succession.
     cause. In attempting to show that the alleged conduct
     was not the exclusive cause of the harm pleaded the
     Court of First Instance committed a manifest error of law
     by which it deprived the appellants of a hearing which
     they could legitimately expect.
—    the Court of First Instance distorted the clear sense of the
     pleas put forward by the appellants in claiming, on the            Action brought on 19 December 2003 by the Commission
     one hand, that the appellants agreed that the attack had                   of the European Communities against Ireland
     not been financed by the funds in question and, on the
     other, that they had neither proved nor claimed that                                        (Case C-532/03)
     Palestinian education was exclusively dependent on the
     funds in question, merely stating that the European
     Community is the Palestinians’ largest provider of funds.                                    (2004/C 85/18)
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities on 19 December 2003
                                                                        by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                        by K. Wiedner, acting as agent, assisted by J. E. Flynn QC, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechthof                    The Applicant claims that the Court should:
Herzogenbusch by order of that Court of 5 November
2003 in the case of M.E.A. van Hilten-van der Heijden                   1.    declare that, in permitting emergency ambulance services
against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/                      to be provided by Dublin City Council without the
           Ondernemingen Buitenland te Heerlen                                Eastern Regional Health Authority undertaking any prior
                                                                              advertising, Ireland has failed to comply with its obli-
                                                                              gations under the Treaty; and
                        (Case C-513/03)
                                                                        2.    order Ireland to pay the Commission’s costs.
                         (2004/C 85/17)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  The Commission takes the view that, in the circumstances of
European Communities by order of the Gerechthof Herzogen-               the case, the maintaining of the arrangement for provision of
busch of 5 November 2003, received at the Court Registry on             ambulance services between Dublin City Council and the
8 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                Eastern Regional Health Authority without undertaking any
M.E.A. van Hilten-van der Heijden against Inspecteur van                prior advertising is a breach of the free movement rules of the
de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen Buitneland te            Treaty (notably Articles 43 and 49) and thereby of the general
Heerlen on the following questions:                                     principles of Community law (notably those of transparency
                                                                        and equality or non-discrimination) which are to be respected
                                                                        in situations to which Community law applies.
1.   Does Article 3(1) of the Netherlands Successiewet (1)
     constitute a permitted restriction within the meaning of
     Article 57(1) EC?