CELEX: C1999/333/42
Language: en
Date: 1999-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-347/99: Action brought on 20 September 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

20.11.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 333/19
Action brought on 17 September 1999 by the Com-                           Action brought on 17 September 1999 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the French                    mission of the European Communities against the Grand
                              Republic                                                          Duchy of Luxembourg
                          (Case C-345/99)                                                           (Case C-346/99)
                                                                                                    (1999/C 333/41)
                          (1999/C 333/40)
                                                                          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
An action against the French Republic was brought before the              brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Court of Justice on 17 September 1999 by the Commission of                ties on 17 September 1999 by the Commission of the
the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa,                 European Communities, represented by Richard B. Wain-
Legal Adviser, and Hélène Michard, of its Legal Service, acting           wright, Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-Castéra, a
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.             as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                          the Court should:
— declare that, by applying to vehicles used by taxable                   — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
     persons carrying on the activity of driving instructors the              administrative measures necessary in order to comply
     condition that, in order for such persons to be able to                  with Commission Directive 96/65/EC of 11 October 1996
     exercise their right to deduct the VAT charged on their                  adapting to technical progress for the fourth time Council
     initial acquisition of those vehicles, the vehicles in question          Directive 88/379/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
     must be used exclusively for that activity, the French                   regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                      States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
     Article 17(2) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May                   of dangerous preparations and modifying Directi-
     1977 (1);                                                                ve 91/442/EEC on dangerous preparations the packaging
                                                                              of which must be fitted with child-resistant fastenings (1),
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.                                 or by failing in any event to inform the Commission of the
                                                                              measures adopted, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
                                                                              failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive authorises Member States
to retain all the exclusions relating to the deductibility of tax         Pleas in law and main arguments
provided for under their national laws on the date of entry
into force of that directive. On the date in question, the French         On the expiry of the time-limit for transposition, namely
legislation excluded from deduction all private vehicles, with            31 May 1998, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not yet
the sole exception of vehicles used for public passenger                  implemented the provisions necessary to comply with the
transport.                                                                directive.
With effect from 1 January 1993, the French legislation                   (1) OJ L 265 of 18.10.1996, p. 15.
introduced a right of deduction in respect of vehicles used for
driving instruction purposes. However, that right is restricted
to vehicles used exclusively for that activity.
According to Article 17(2) of the directive, the right to deduct
must arise where the goods concerned are used by the taxable
person for the purposes of his taxable transactions; that right           Action brought on 20 September 1999 by the Com-
cannot be restricted to goods used exclusively for the activity              mission of the European Communities against Ireland
in question.
                                                                                                    (Case C-347/99)
A Member State may not establish its own criteria for
application of the deduction by limiting the scope of a national                                    (1999/C 333/42)
exclusion of the right to deduct.
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities on 20 September 1999
(1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17.5.1977 (OJ L 145 of                by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
    13.6.1977, p. 1.)                                                     by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                          Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Legal Service of the Commission,
                                                                          Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 333/20              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht,
                                                                       Bremen by order of that court of 25 August 1999 in
— declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations or           the case of Wolfgang Lange against Georg Schünemann
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with                                              GmbH
    Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uni-
    form procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous
    goods by road (1), or in any event by failing to inform the                                (Case C-350/99)
    Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
    its obligations under that Directive;                                                      (1999/C 333/44)
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht (Labour
                                                                       Court), Bremen of 25 August 1999, received at the Court
Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which           Registry on 22 September 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,         the case of Wolfgang Lange v Georg Schünemann GmbH on
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation           the following questions:
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January           1. Does Article 2(2)(i) of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of
1997 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary               14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of             employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or
the Commission.                                                            employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32) also
                                                                           apply to agreements by the employee pursuant to which
(1) OJ L 249, 17.10.1995, p. 35.                                           he undertakes in general terms to work overtime?
                                                                       2. Under Article 2 thereof is a national law transposing
                                                                           Directive 91/533 to be interpreted so as to render agree-
                                                                           ments invalid from a substantive point of view as well,
                                                                           where they not only lack the precision required thereby
Action brought on 20 September 1999 by the Com-                            but also confer on the employer vaguely formulated
mission of the European Communities against the Grand                      unilateral rights?
                     Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                       3. (a) In order to ensure an interpretation in conformity
                        (Case C-348/99)                                         with EC law, does Directive 91/533 require national
                                                                                principles, under which a party not complying with its
                        (1999/C 333/43)
                                                                                obligations to provide documentation is deemed to
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                             have frustrated the production of evidence, to be
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                    applied also where an employer has failed to provide
ties on 20 September 1999 by the Commission of the                              information pursuant to Directive 91/533?
European Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius,
Legal Adviser, and Manuel Desantes, a national civil servant               (b) If Question 3(a) is answered in the negative, are
on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an                   national principles of law precluded under the third
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                       indent of Article 6 of Directive 91/533 from being
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                    applied in the manner described at (a) above?
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
    administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
    Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council on the legal protection of databases (1), the Grand
    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations           Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by the Council of
    under that directive;                                              the European Union against the judgment delivered on
                                                                       19 July 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                Instance of the European Communities in case T-14/98 (1)
                                                                       between Heidi Hautala, Member of the European Parlia-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        ment, supported by the Republic of Finland and the
                                                                       Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the European
On the expiry of the time-limit for transposition, namely                        Union, supported by the French Republic
1 January 1998, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not
adopted the measures necessary in order to comply with the                                    (Case C-353/99 P)
directive, and had not communicated to the Commission the
wording of the domestic legislation adopted to that end.
                                                                                               (1999/C 333/45)
(1) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 July 1999 by
                                                                       the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European