CELEX: C1999/188/38
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-138/99: Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

C 188/16               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3.7.1999
Does European law require a period of child-rearing under                  Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of
German law prior to 1 January 1986 to be taken into account                the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
if the child was in fact raised in another Member State (in this
case France) but the parent who brought the child up was
                                                                                                     (Case C-137/99)
engaged in occupational activity as a cross-border worker
subject to compulsory insurance in the Federal Republic of
Germany until the start of the maternal protection period and                                        (1999/C 188/37)
after the end of her maternity leave as well?
                                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 April
                                                                           1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its legal Service,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                           Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French
Conseil d’Etat (Council of State) (Judicial Section, Ninth                 1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
and Eighth Sub-Sections) by order of that court of 5 March                      administrative provisions required to comply with Council
1999 in the case of Ministre du Budget and Ministre de                          Directive 96/43/EC (1) of 26 June 1996 amending and
l’Economie et des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di                        consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure
                               Siena                                            financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live
                                                                                animals and certain animal products and amending Direc-
                                                                                tives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, for the protection of
                         (Case C-136/99)                                        animals during transportation, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
                                                                                directive;
                         (1999/C 188/36)
                                                                           2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the French Conseil                     Pleas in law and main arguments
d’Etat (Council of State) (Judicial Section, Ninth and Eighth
Sub-Sections) of 5 March 1999, which was received at the
Court Registry on 19 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in               The Member States are required by the binding character of
the case of Ministre du Budget and Ministre de l’Economie et               the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of the EC
des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena.                          Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives
                                                                           into national law before the expiry of the period laid down for
                                                                           that purpose and to communicate those measures immediately
The French Conseil d’Etat is asking the Court of Justice to rule           to the Commission. That period expired on 1 July 1997
on the question whether or not the provisions of the Eighth                without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 (1)have                   Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
the effect of granting to taxable persons established in a                 into national law.
Member State of the Community where they are taxed only on
a part of their turnover a right to a partial refund of the tax            (1) OJ No L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1.
charged in another Member State in respect of goods or
services which they have used in order to carry out, in the
State in which they are established, transactions of which some
are not taxed. If they do, to what method of determining the
portion of refundable tax do those provisions refer, and, in
particular, is that portion to be determined according to the
rules applicable in the State where the taxable person is
established, or according to the rules in force in the State
required to make the refund?                                               Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                                       Luxembourg
(1) Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on
    the harmonisation of the 1aws of the Member States relating to                                   (Case C-138/99)
    turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax
    to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country
    (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11).                                                                          (1999/C 188/38)
                                                                           An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of the European
 ---pagebreak--- 3.7.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 188/17
Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser,               (2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                 The Commission considers that Ireland’s legislation, by
the Court should:                                                      imposing excise duty on carriers in respect of every passenger
                                                                       ticket on services from Ireland to other Member States (with
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and        the exception of flights to Northern Ireland) and not upon
    administrative measures necessary in order to comply               flights within Ireland (and to Northern Ireland), is incompatable
    with Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994                with the principle of freedom to provide services as stated in
    establishing the fundamental principles governing the              Articles 59 and 62 of the Treaty and in the rules laid down in
    investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents (1),       Article 3(1) of Regulation 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access
    the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its             for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.
    obligations under that directive;
                                                                       With regard to Ireland’s contention that there is no infringe-
(2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.              ment of Regulation 2408/92 because the excise duty is
                                                                       non-discriminatory on grounds of nationality, the Commission
                                                                       is of the view that the principles governing the freedom to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        provide services go beyond the mere prohibition of any
                                                                       discrimination on grounds of nationality. Even if national
                                                                       measures restricting that freedom apply without distinction to
Article 12 of the abovementioned directive provides that the           national providers of services and to those of other Member
Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations            States, they are still unacceptable if they are not warranted by
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the             mandatory requirements in the public interest, or if the
directive not later than 21 November 1996, and that they are           same result can be obtained by less restrictive rules (the
to inform the Commission thereof.                                      proportionality principle).
Although the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg indicated, in its               (1) OJ L 240, 24.08.1992, p. 8.
response to the formal notice and to the reasoned opinion,
that the necessary measures were in the course of preparation,
the Commission has not to date received any information
regarding the adoption of those measures.
(1) OJ L 319 of 12.12.1994, p. 14.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
                                                                       Beroep te Gent by judgment of that court of 13 April
                                                                       1999 in the case of NV Algemene Maatschappij van
                                                                       Verzekeringen en Grondkrediet, now known as NV
                                                                       Algemene Maatschappij voor Investering en Dienstverl-
                                                                                  ening (AMID), against the Belgian State
Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of                                            (Case C-141/99)
         the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                                (1999/C 188/40)
                        (Case C-139/99)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        (1999/C 188/39)                                European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep te
                                                                       Gent (Ghent Court of Appeal) of 13 April 1999, received at
                                                                       the Court Registry on 21 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of              in the case of NV Algemene Maatschappij van Verzekeringen
Justice of the European Communities on 19 April 1999 by the            en Grondkrediet, now known as NV Algemene Maatschappij
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                 voor Investering en Dienstverlening (AMID), against the
Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address          Belgian State, on the following question:
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre            Does Article 52 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing
Wagner.                                                                the European Community preclude the application of national
                                                                       legislation of a Member State under which, for the purposes of
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            assessment to corporation tax, a business loss incurred in that
                                                                       Member State during an earlier taxable period by a company
(1) declare that by providing in Section 65 of the Finance Act         established in that State can be offset against the profits made
    1982 (as amended) that flights from Ireland to other               by that company during a later taxable period only to the
    Member States (with the exception of Northern Ireland)             extent to which that loss cannot be attributed to the profit
    are subject to a higher tax rate than flights within Ireland,      made by a permanent establishment of that company in
    Ireland has failed to comply with Article 3(1) of Council          another Member State during that earlier taxable period, with
    Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1);                                   the result that the loss thus attributed cannot be offset, in