CELEX: C2002/274/30
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-319/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the korkein Hallinto-oikeus by order of that Court of 10 September 2002 in the appeal brought by Petri Mikael Manninen

C 274/18               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.11.2002
Appeal brought on 10 September 2002 by Hijos de                             HAMSA had no opportunity, during either the adminis-
Andrés Molina S.A. against the judgment delivered by the                    trative or the judicial procedure, to put forward its
Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                        arguments concerning that new formulation by the Court
First Instance of the European Communities on 10 July                       of First Instance of the matter at issue, which amounted
2002 in Case T-152/99 between Hijos de Andrés Molina                        to breach of HAMSA’s right to a fair hearing. In its
 S.A. and the Commission of the European Communities                        submission, that fact constitutes a breach of procedure
                                                                            which adversely affects its interests within the meaning
                                                                            of Article 51 of the EEC Statute of the Court of Justice.
                        (Case C-316/02 P)
                                                                            Secondly, the appellant alleges that the Court of First
                                                                            Instance failed to analyse the aid granted to HAMSA in
                         (2002/C 274/29)                                    1994 in accordance with scheme N 462/94 which it
                                                                            regards as applicable.
                                                                       (b)  The rescue and restructuring aid granted on the basis of a
An appeal against the judgment delivered by the Fifth Chamber               restructuring plan was compatible with the common
(Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the                market:
European Communities on 11 July 2002 in Case T-152/99
between Hijos de Andrés Molina S.A. and the Commission of                   In its decision of 3 February 1999 the Commission stated
the European Communities was brought before the Court of                    that it had not received the HAMSA restructuring plan
Justice of the European Communities on 10 September 2002                    until 4 July 1997. None the less, in response to questions
by Hijos de Andrés Molina S.A. (HAMSA), represented by Luis                 asked by the Court of First Instance a few days before the
Manuel Olivencia Brugger and José Luis Ballester García-                    hearing, the Commission acknowledged that it had
Izquierdo, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                       received the restructuring plan before the Spanish auth-
                                                                            orities notified it of the aid on 1 July 1996. In actual fact,
                                                                            the restructuring plan was delivered by a Spanish official
                                                                            to a Community official in DG Agriculture in January
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1996, but the Commission did not decide to initiate the
                                                                            procedure under Article 93(3) of the Treaty or to adopt
—     set aside in part the judgment of 11 July 2002, and rule              measures of any kind with regard to the plan and the aid
                                                                            granted in implementing it in accordance with the
                                                                            provisions of the directives relating to the rescuing and
      (a)   that the aid granted to HAMSA in 1994 was                       restructuring of undertakings in crisis. Later, on 29 April
            compatible with Community law, being compatible                 1997, that is to say, 14 months after the restructuring
            with the general aid scheme applicable;                         plan was notified, the Commission gave notice of the
                                                                            opening of the procedure, considering that the aid had
      (b) that the aid granted pursuant to the HAMSA restruc-               not been notified, when, following the Lorenz case-law,
            turing plan in December 1995 was compatible with                it ought to have been regarded as existing aid.
            Community law;
      (c)   uphold the remainder of the contested judgment of
            11 July 2002 which is not challenged in this appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the korkein Hallin-
                                                                       to-oikeus by order of that Court of 10 September 2002 in
(a)   The aid received by HAMSA in 1994 on the basis of a                     the appeal brought by Petri Mikael Manninen
      general aid scheme previously approved by the Com-
      mission was compatible with Community law:
                                                                                                (Case C-319/02)
      In its judgment the Court of First Instance introduced a
      new matter, extraneous to the proceedings and to the                                      (2002/C 274/30)
      dispute brought before it. Whereas the parties, HAMSA
      and the Commission, took the view that the aid granted
      in 1993 and 1994 was regulated by general aid schemes
      N 624792 and N 428/93, respectively, the Court of First
      Instance considered that schemes N 428/93 and N 462/             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      94 applied to the aid granted in 1993 and 1994,                  European Communities by order of the korkein Hallinto-
      respectively.                                                    oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court) of 10 September 2002,
 ---pagebreak--- 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-