CELEX: C2000/163/35
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-130/00: Action brought on 5 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

10.6.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 163/19
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be         Such conduct clearly conflicts with Community law, as
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12 to           interpreted by the Court of Justice, and specifically
14 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz, (Salzburg Land
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl. No.
11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a                     (a) with the principles of effectiveness and judicial protection
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply                    of rights recognised by Community law;
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by          (b) with the prohibition of making the exercise of rights
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this                    conferred by Community law excessively difficult;
case?
                                                                        (c) with the prohibition of rules of evidence which place on
                                                                             the taxpayer the onus of proving that the taxes unduly
                                                                             paid have not been passed on to others.
Action brought on 4 April 2000 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         (Case C-129/00)
                         (2000/C 163/34)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
Court of Justice on 4 April 2000 by the Commission of the               Action brought on 5 April 2000 by the Commission of
European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal             the European Communities against the Federal Republic
Adviser, Acting as Agent, with an address for service in                                           of Germany
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                                                 (Case C-130/00)
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
(a) Declare that, by keeping in force the second paragraph of                                    (2000/C 163/35)
     Article 29 of Law No 428 of 29 December 1990 which, as
     interpreted and applied by the administrative and judicial
     authorities, lays down rules of evidence in relation to the        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     passing on of taxes levied in breach of Community                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
     provisions which in practice make exercise of the right to         ties on 5 April 2000 by the Commission of the European
     reimbursement of such taxes impossible or in any event             Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer of the
     excessively difficult for the taxpayer and as such are             Legal Service of the Commission of the European Communi-
     incompatible with the legal principle laid down by the             ties, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
     Court of Justice regarding the recovery of sums paid but           Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre C 254 Kirchberg,
     not due, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC         Luxembourg.
     Treaty;
(b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate to the
                                                                             Commission the necessary measures to implement into
The Commission considers that the specific way in which the                  domestic law European Parliament and Council Directive
Italian provision is interpreted by the Italian judiciary and in             97/52/EC (1) of 13 October 1997 amending Directives
particular the Corte Suprema di Cassazione ultimately places                 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the
on the taxpayer the burden of proving that he did not pass on                coordination of proposals for the award of public service
to his customers the amount of the unlawful tax, making it                   contracts, public supply contracts and public works con-
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to secure reimbursement              tracts respectively within the prescribed period the Federal
of the taxes. The Italian Administration has systematically,                 Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
since the entry into force of Law No 428/90, opposed any                     under the EC Treaty and that directive.
application for reimbursement based on the illegality, under
Community law, of the levy or other charges made in
connection with customs operations or consumer taxes.                   2. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 163/20                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
                                                                          Appeal Tribunal, United Kingdom, by order of that court
                                                                          of 7 April 2000, in the case of Mrs J.R. Bowden, Mrs J.L.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                    Chapman and Mrs J.J. Doyle against Tuffnells Parcels
Case C-105/00 (2); the period for implementation expired on                                          Express Ltd
13 October 1998.
                                                                                                   (Case C-133/00)
(1) OJ L 328 of 28 November 1997, p. 1.
(2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.                                                            (2000/C 163/37)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the Employment
                                                                          Appeal Tribunal, United Kingdom, of 7 April 2000, which
                                                                          was received at the Court Registry on 10 April 2000, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs J.R. Bowden, Mrs J.L.
                                                                          Chapman and Mrs J.J. Doyle against Tuffnells Parcels Express
                                                                          Ltd, on the following questions:
                                                                          1. Given that the informed view of responsible bodies that
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Länsrätten i                        amendment is needed if a legislative provision is to achieve
Norrbottens Län of 28 March 2000 in the case of Ingemar                       a certain effect is likely to be consistent only with a view
        Nilsson against Länsstyrelsen Norrbottens Län                         that the provision, before amendment, does not have that
                                                                              effect, and given also the previously expressed views of the
                                                                              ESC, the European Parliament, the Commission and the
                           (Case C-131/00)                                    Council’s Common Position Paper on the subject of the
                                                                              exceptions to Article 1.3 of Directive 93/104/EEC(1)
                                                                              suggesting that, as yet, there is an exception from the
                           (2000/C 163/36)                                    benefits of the Directive of all who work in the road
                                                                              transport sector of activity but that such an exception has
                                                                              been and is entirely unjustified, how far, if at all, are we
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        enabled to infer from such non-legislative materials either
European Communities by order of the Länsrätten i Norrbot-                    that:
tens Län of 28 March 2000, received at the Court Registry on
6 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ingemar
                                                                              (a) as yet the proper construction of the wording of Article
Nilsson against Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens Län on the follow-
                                                                                  1.3 is one which excludes all such persons, or
ing question:
                                                                              (b) that such a reading would not represent a just and
With reference to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No                        purposive construction of the Article?
3508/92 (1), the Court of Justice is requested to give a
preliminary ruling on the question whether that article is to be
understood as meaning that entitlement to aid is excluded                 2. Whatever the conclusion is to Question 1, if, in the course
where notes have not been made in the animal keeper’s register                of our task of interpreting our national laws in the light of
(stall journal) (2).                                                          the wording and purpose of the Directive, we encounter
                                                                              what we take to be a broad purpose (‘every worker in the
                                                                              European Community will have a right to … annual paid
                                                                              leave’) but also, given no less prominence in the very same
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992                   provision, a wording (‘shall apply to all sectors of activity
    establishing an integrated administration and control system for          ... with the exception of .... road .... transport’) which
    certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1).                      appears to be significantly destructive of that broad
(2) Kept in accordance with Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC)              purpose, at all events on the facts before us, are we entitled
    No 820/97 of 21 April 1997, establishing a system for the                 (and if so, by reference to what principles) to apply our
    identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding           national laws to the facts of the particular case before us
    the labelling of beef products (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 1) and the State        so as to give effect to that broad purpose notwithstanding
    Agricultural Board’s rules (SJVFS 1994:190) on the marking and
                                                                              the clarity of the wording appearing to exclude that
    registration of animals.
                                                                              purpose on such facts?
                                                                          3. To raise similar issues in a less abstract way, are all workers
                                                                              employed in the road transport sector of activity referred
                                                                              to in Article 1.3 necessarily excluded from the scope of
                                                                              Directive 93/104?