CELEX: C2002/084/67
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-452/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) by order of 19 October 2001 in the case of 1. Margarete Ospelt, 2. Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg

6.4.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 84/39
       (ii) assignable                                                   Action brought on 27 November 2001 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the Italian
       before they can be described a ‘goods’ that fall within the                                      Republic
       provisions of 1993 Regulations and/or in the Directive?
                                                                                                   (Case C-455/01)
                                                                                                    (2002/C 84/68)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof (Austria) by order of 19 October 2001 in the
case of 1. Margarete Ospelt, 2. Schlössle Weissenberg                    An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
Familienstiftung v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des                     Court of Justice on 27 November 2001 by the Commission of
                        Landes Vorarlberg                                the European Communities, represented by Richard B. Wain-
                                                                         wright and Roberto Amorosi, acting as Agents.
                         (Case C-452/01)
                          (2002/C 84/67)                                 The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                         —     Declare that, by keeping in force legislation under which
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         products in respect of which there has not yet been full
European Communities by order of 19 October 2001 by the                        harmonisation, intended for use on merchant vessels
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court, Aus-                      flying the Italian flag, may be marketed only if a certificate
tria), which was received at the Court Registry on 22 November                 of conformity has been issued by a national body — so
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1. Margarete                     that in some cases the right to market the products is
Ospelt, 2. Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung v Unabhän-                   enjoyed only by the grantee of the certificate — and by
giger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg on the following                  not recognising the validity of tests carried out in
questions:                                                                     accordance with international standards by bodies
                                                                               officially recognised in the other Member States or States
1.     Are Article 12 EC (ex Article 6 of the EC Treaty) and                   signatory to the EEA Agreement, even where the relevant
       Article 56 EC et seq. (ex Article 73b et seq. of the EC                 information is made available to the competent authority
       Treaty) to be interpreted as meaning that rules whereby                 and it is clear from the certificates that the equipment
       transactions in agricultural and forestry plots are subject             guarantees an equivalent degree of safety, the Italian
       to restrictions imposed by the administrative authorities               Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       in the public interest of preserving, strengthening or                  Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty;
       creating a viable farming community are also permitted
       in relation to Member States of the EEA as ‘third countries’      —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
       under Article 56(1) EC (ex Article 73b of the EC Treaty)
       having regard to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed
       by an applicable law of the European Union, in particular
       the free movement of capital?
                                                                         Pleas and principal arguments
2.     In the event that the first question is answered in the
       affirmative:
       Are Article 12 EC (ex Article 6 of the EC Treaty) and
                                                                         The slavish application — when not justified by overriding
       Article 56 EC et seq. (ex Article 73b et seq. of the EC
                                                                         requirements — to goods lawfully produced and marketed in
       Treaty) to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the
                                                                         other Member States of rules laid down for domestically
       appellant must, in the case of transfers of agricultural and
                                                                         produced goods, and in particular the refusal to take account,
       forestry plots, undergo an ‘authorisation procedure’ even
                                                                         for the purposes of issuing ‘type approval declarations’, of
       before the property right is entered in the land register,
                                                                         certificates accompanying such goods, even where they contain
       pursuant to the (Voralberg) Gesetz über den Verkehr mit
                                                                         the information needed to assess how safe they are, undoubt-
       Grundstücken (Land Transfer Law — VGVG 1993)
                                                                         edly constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a
       published in Voralberg LGBl. No 61/1993, entails an
                                                                         quantitative restriction on imports which is liable to hinder
       infringement of Community law and of one of the
                                                                         intra-Community trade.
       appellant’s fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the law
       of the European Union, which is also applicable to
       Member States of the EEA as ‘third countries’ under
       Article 56(1) EC (ex Article 73b of the EC Treaty)?               The foregoing is common ground. At issue is the measure
                                                                         adopted by the Italian State in order to adjust its domestic
                                                                         legislation to the principles laid down in Community law once