CELEX: C1995/248/18
Language: en
Date: 1995-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 2 August 1995 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union (Case C-259/95)

23 . 9 . 95           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 248/9
1956 be regarded as discriminatory within the meaning of                Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 1 8 July 1 995 , which was
Article 95 of the EC Treaty in relation to vehicles for which           received at the Court Registry on 4 August 1995 , for a
type-approval was given after the Treaty entered into force             preliminary ruling in the case of the Commissioners of
and before 1 January 1978 ?                                             Customs and Excise against DFDS A/S, on the following
                                                                        questions :
                                                                        on the proper interpretation of Council Directive
                                                                        77/388/EC (') on the harmonization of the laws of the
     Action brought on 2 August 1995 by the European                    Member States relating to turnover tax ( the Sixth VAT
   Parliament against the Council of the European Union                 Directive ), and in particular Article 26 thereof, where a tour
                                                                        operator has its headquarters in Member State A but
                        ( Case C-259/95
                                                                        supplies services in the form of package tours to travellers
                           ( 95/C 248/ 18                               through the agency of a company in Member State B:
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 ( a ) in what ( if any ) circumstances is the supply of those
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                           . services by the tour operator taxable in Member
Communities on 2 August 1995 by the European                                    State B ?
Parliament, represented by Christian Pennera , Head of
Division in its Legal Service, and Peter Dyrberg, of the Legal          ( b ) in what ( if any ) circumstances can it be said that the
Service , acting as agents, with an address for service in                      tour operator 'has established [its] business' in Member
Luxembourg at the Secretariat of the European Parliament,                       State B or ' has a fixed establishment from which [it] has
Tower Building, Kirchberg.                                                      provided the services' in Member State B ?
The European Parliament claims that the Court should :                  (') Council Directive 77/388/EEC ( Sixth Council Directive ) of
                                                                              17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member
— annul Council Decision No 95/ 184/EC of 22 May                              States relating to turnover taxes — common system of value
     1995 (') amending Decision No 3092/94/EC                                 added tax : uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 .
     introducing a Community system of information on                         1977, p. 1 ).
     home and leisure accidents,
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Lack of legal basis :                                                   Action brought on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities against the Federal Republic of
— the reference to Article 169 of the 1994 Act of Accession                                              Germany
     is inappropriate in this case because that provision does                                      ( Case C-262/95 )
     not permit legislative amendments to be made after the                                           ( 95/C 248/20 )
     entry into force of the Accession Treaty on 1 January
     1995 .
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
— Article 169 of the Act of Accession cannot permit the                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     Council unilaterally to amend and modify an act jointly             Communities on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
     adopted by the Parliament and the Council in                       European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
     accordance with Article 189b of the EC Treaty . To apply           Legal Adviser, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     it in the manner in which the Council did in adopting the          the office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre C 254 ,
     contested Decision effectively undermines the                      Kirchberg.
     paramountcy of the EC Treaty and disregards the rule
     laid down in Article 9 of the Act of Accession .                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
 (') OJ No L 120, 31 . 5 . 1995 , p . 36 .                               ( 1 ) declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                 time-limits all the measures necessary in order to
                                                                                 comply with the following Directives, in particular
                                                                                 Article 3 of each of them, the Ferderal Republic of
                                                                                 Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                         Treaty:
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
 18 July 1995 , in the case of the Commissioners of Customs                      — Council Directive 82/176/EEC (*) of 22 March
                 and Excise against DFDS A/S                                         1982 on limit values and quality objectives for
                                                                                     mercury discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis
                         ( Case C-260/95 )
                                                                                     industry,
                            ( 95/C 248/ 19 )
                                                                                 — Council Directive 83/513/EEC ( 2 ) of 26 September
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              1983 on limit values and quality objectives for
 European Communities by an order of the High Court of                               cadmium discharges,