CELEX: C2003/200/29
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-269/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'appel of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment of that Court in the civil proceedings between 1. Administration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines, and 2. État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg and Vermietungsgesellschaft Objekt Kirchberg

C 200/16                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        23.8.2003
Secondly, reserving delegated management contracts solely to                     with the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, Rumania
the legal entities listed in Article 4 of the Law of 12 July 1985                and Poland concerning inland navigation, which affect the
on the supervision of public work and its relation with the                      Community rules adopted by the Community in Council
supervision of private work, as amended, constitutes a restric-                  Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December 1991
tion on the principle of the freedom to provide services. Such a                 laying down the conditions under which non-resident
restriction cannot be justified either by Article 45, inasmuch as                carriers may transport goods or passengers by inland
the tasks entrusted are not connected, even occasionally, with                   waterway within a Member State. Article 7 of those
the exercise of official authority, or by Article 46, since grounds              agreements provides, subject to special authorisation, for
of public policy, public security or public health are not applic-               access to cabotage in Luxembourg by carriers from the
able in the present case.                                                        non-member countries concerned.
(1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
                                                                           —     The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not observed its
    coordination of procedures for the award of public service                   obligations under Article 10 EC by negotiating,
    contracts (OJ L 209, 24.07.1992, p. 1).                                      concluding, ratifying and arranging for the entry into
                                                                                 force of the bilateral agreements in question after the
                                                                                 grant of a negotiating mandate by the Council to the
                                                                                 Commission to negotiate an agreement between the EEC,
                                                                                 on the one hand, and Poland and the States parties to the
                                                                                 Danube Convention (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania,
                                                                                 Bulgaria, the former USSR, the former Yugoslavia and
Action brought on 18 June 2003 by the Commission of                              Austria), on the other.
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                             Luxembourg                                    —     The bilateral agreements concluded by the Grand Duchy
                                                                                 of Luxembourg are incompatible with Council Regulation
                           (Case C-266/03)                                       (EC) No 1356/96 of 8 July 1996 on common rules
                                                                                 applicable to the transport of goods or passengers by
                                                                                 inland waterway between Member States with a view to
                           (2003/C 200/28)
                                                                                 establishing freedom to provide such transport services.
                                                                                 The Polish, Rumanian, Czech and Slovak shippers and
                                                                                 navigation companies capable of being authorised under
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                              the bilateral agreements in question to effect transports
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-                       between Luxembourg and the other Member States do
nities on 18 June 2003 by the Commission of the European                         not satisfy the conditions laid down in that regulation.
Communities, represented by C. Schmidt and W. Wils, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           (1) OJ 1991 L 373, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ 1996 L 175, p. 7.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:
1.    Declare that, under the first paragraph of Article 226 of
      the Treaty establishing the European Community, the
      Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by individually negotiating,
      concluding, ratifying, arranging for the entry into force
      and refusing to renounce the bilateral agreements with the
      Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, Rumania and                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'appel of
      Poland concerning inland navigation, has failed to fulfil            the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment of that
      its obligations under Article 10 EC and Council Regula-              Court in the civil proceedings between 1. Administration
      tion (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December 1991 laying                     de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines, and 2. État du
      down the conditions under which non-resident carriers                Grand-Duché de Luxembourg and Vermietungsgesellschaft
      may transport goods or passengers by inland waterway                                          Objekt Kirchberg
      within a Member State (1) and Council Regulation (EC)
      No 1356/96 of 8 July 1996 on common rules applicable
      to the transport of goods or passengers by inland                                             (Case C-269/03)
      waterway between Member States with a view to estab-
      lishing freedom to provide such transport services (2).
                                                                                                    (2003/C 200/29)
2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (Court of Appeal) of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 20 June 2003, for a
—     The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has infringed the                      preliminary ruling in the civil proceedings between 1. Adminis-
      exclusive Community competence as defined in the                     tration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines (Registration and
      ERTA case (Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971]                    Land Authority), and 2. État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
      ECR 263) by negotiating, concluding, ratifying and arran-            and Vermietungsgesellschaft Objekt Kirchberg on the following
      ging for the entry into force of the bilateral agreements            question:
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 200/17
Does subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 13C of           As regards hazardous waste transported directly by its
the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on               producer, the same provision of the Italian decree establishes
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to           a further exemption from the requirement of registration in
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax (1),                   the register referred to above, which applies to undertakings
permit a Member State which has exercised the power to allow             that transport less than 30 litres or 30 kg of waste per day.
taxpayers a right of option for taxation in cases of letting and
leasing of immovable property to make full deduction of the
input VAT conditional upon non-retroactive approval of the tax           In sum, the requirement in question is limited to the collection
authorities first being obtained?                                        and transportation of hazardous waste, except in cases where
                                                                         the collection or transportation of such waste is carried out by
                                                                         its producer in quantities below a certain daily limit, and to
(1) OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1.                                          the collection and transportation of non-hazardous waste on
                                                                         behalf of others.
                                                                         That is clearly inconsistent with the directive. According to
                                                                         Article 12 of the directive, all undertakings, without distinc-
                                                                         tion, which on a professional basis collect or transport waste
                                                                         of any kind, whether hazardous or non-hazardous, must,
                                                                         where not subject to authorisation, be registered with the
Action brought on 23 June 2003 by the Commission of                      competent authorities.
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                         (1) OJ L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 39.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 78, 26.03.1991, p. 32.
                          (Case C-270/03)
                          (2003/C 200/30)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 June
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      Action brought on 21 June 2003 by Ireland against the
represented by L. Visaggio and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.                      Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                   (Case C-271/03)
—     declare that, by permitting undertakings, under
      Article 30(4) of Legislative Decree No 22, of 5 February                                     (2003/C 200/31)
      1997, as amended by Law No 426, of 9 December 1998,
      to collect and transport their own non-hazardous waste,
      as an ordinary activity, without requiring them to be
      registered in the national register of undertakings carrying       An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
      out waste disposal services, and, in addition, by permit-          nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      ting undertakings to transport their own hazardous waste           Communities on 21 June 2003 by Ireland, represented by
      in quantities of less than 30 kg and 30 litres per day,            D.J. O'Hagan, acting as agent, assisted by P. Gallagher SC,
      without requiring them to be entered in that register, the         P. McGarry, Barrister and J. Buttimore of the Office of the
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under        Attorney General, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      Article 12 of Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as
      amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2);
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         a)    declare the action admissible;
                                                                         b)    annul Commission Decision C(2003)1084 reducing assis-
                                                                               tance granted from the European Regional Development
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Find (ERDF) to the Global Grant Scheme for Private
                                                                               Sector Tourism and Development, Operational Programme
                                                                               for Tourism (1989-1993) sub-programme 2, in Ireland
As regards non-hazardous waste, Article 30(4) of the Legisla-                  under Commission Decision C89(2258/7) of 21 December
tive Decree expressly exempts undertakings which, on their                     1989;
own account, collect and transport non-hazardous waste in
the course of their particular occupational activities from the
requirement of registration in the national register of under-           c)    order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceed-
takings carrying out waste disposal services.                                  ings.