CELEX: C2002/274/33
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-326/02: Action brought on 17 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

9.11.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 274/19
received at the Court Registry on 12 September 2002, for a            Action brought on 16 September 2002 by the Com-
preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Petri Mikael              mission of the European Communities against the
Manninen on the following questions:                                                         Kingdom of Spain
1.   Is Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the European                                     (Case C-324/02)
     Community to be interpreted as precluding a corporation
     tax credit system like the Finnish one described above, in
     which the recipient of a dividend who is generally liable                                 (2002/C 274/32)
     to tax in Finland is granted a corporation tax credit in
     respect of a dividend paid by a domestic share company,
     but not in respect of dividend income he receives from a         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
     share company registered in Sweden?                              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 Sep-
                                                                      tember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
2.   If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative,       ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal
     may Article 58 EC be interpreted as meaning that the             Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
     provisions of Article 56 are without prejudice to Finland’s
     right to apply the relevant provisions of the Law on
     Corporation Tax Credits, since it is a condition for             The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
     obtaining a corporation tax credit in Finland that the
     company distributing the dividend has paid the corre-            —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     sponding tax or supplementary tax in Finland, which                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     does not take place with respect to a dividend paid from               Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1) of 22 April 1999
     abroad, in which case taxation is not even carried out                 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen
     once?                                                                  dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and
                                                                            lead in ambient air or, in any event, by failing to
                                                                            communicate such provisions to the Commission, the
                                                                            Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            that directive;
                                                                      —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
(Sweden) by order of that Court of 10 September 2002 in               Pleas in law and main arguments
the case of Förvaltnings AB Stenholmen against Riksskat-
                            teverket
                                                                      The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC
                                                                      and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC requires the Member
                        (Case C-320/02)                               States to adopt the measures necessary to implement the
                                                                      directives addressed to them before the expiry of the period
                                                                      prescribed for that purpose. The period in question expired on
                        (2002/C 274/31)
                                                                      19 July 2001 without Spain’s having introduced the necessary
                                                                      measures.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                (1 ) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.
European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten
(Supreme Administrative Court) (Sweden) of 10 September
2002, received at the Court Registry on 13 September 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Förvaltnings AB
Stenholmen against Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board) on
the following questions:
                                                                      Action brought on 17 September 2002 by the Com-
1.   Can an animal be considered to be second-hand goods?             mission of the European Communities against the
                                                                                             Kingdom of Spain
     If that question is answered in the affirmative, the Court
     is asked to answer the following question.
                                                                                               (Case C-326/02)
2.   Is an animal which is purchased from a private individual
     (rather than a breeder) and which is sold, after training,                                (2002/C 274/33)
     for a specific purpose to be considered to be second-hand
     goods?
                                                                      An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Sep-
 ---pagebreak--- C 274/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.11.2002
tember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-                   1.    Must the answer given by the Court to question 4 in its
ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal                     judgment of 27 November 2001 in Case C-257/99
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                            Barkoci and Malik be interpreted to mean that it is
                                                                               incompatible with Article 45(1) in conjunction with
                                                                               Article 59(1) of the Association Agreement with Bulgaria,
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                         Article 44(3) in conjunction with Article 58 of the
                                                                               Association Agreement with Poland and Article 45(3) in
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  conjunction with Article 59 of the Association Agreement
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   with the Slovak Republic for the competent authority,
      Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on                     when assessing an application submitted in the Nether-
      the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds                lands for a full residence permit with a view to establish-
      due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and             ment in accordance with the Association Agreement, to
      installations or, in any event, by failing to communicate                refrain from examining the contents of the application
      such provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of                        solely on the ground that the applicant does not have a
      Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                    temporary residence permit? Does the fact that the
      directive;                                                               substantive entry requirements are clearly and manifestly
                                                                               satisfied make any difference to the answer to this
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                             question?
                                                                         2.    Is it relevant for the purposes of answering the first
                                                                               question, and if so how, whether the person applying for
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               a full residence permit is legally resident in the Nether-
                                                                               lands at the time of the application, whether or not on
The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC                    the basis of an entitlement other than a temporary
and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC requires the Member                   residence permit, such as the ‘free period’ referred to in
States to adopt the measures necessary to implement the                        Article 8 of the Vreemdelingenwet?
directives addressed to them before the expiry of the period
prescribed for that purpose. The period in question expired on
1 April 2001 without Spain’s having introduced the necessary
measures.
( 1) OJ L 85, 29.3.1999, p. 1.
                                                                         Action brought on 19 September 2002 by the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities against Ireland
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank te                                            (Case C-330/02)
s’-Gravenhage by decision of that Court of 16 September
2002 in the case of Lili Georgieva Panayotova, Radostina
Markova Kalcheva, Izabella Malgorzata Lis, Lubica Sopo-                                           (2002/C 274/35)
va, Izabela Leokadia Topa and Jolanta Monika Rusiecka
 against Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie
                         (Case C-327/02)
                                                                         An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                         (2002/C 274/34)                                 Justice of the European Communities on 19 September 2002
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Mr X. Lewis, acting as agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of the Rechtbank te
s’-Gravenhage (District Court, The Hague) of 16 September                The Applicant claims that the Court should:
2002, received at the Court Registry on 18 September
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lili Georgieva
Panayotova, Radostina Markova Kalcheva, Izabella Malgorzata              —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Lis, Lubica Sopova, Izabela Leokadia Topa and Jolanta Monika                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Rusiecka against Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Inte-                     Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on
gratie (Minister for Alien Affairs and Integration) on the                     the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds
following questions:                                                           due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and