CELEX: C2000/176/20
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-140/00: Action brought on 12 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

24.6.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 176/11
2. Does the function of the target price for milk set by the               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
     Council under Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 preclude a                   richtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 30 March
     Member State from:                                                    2000 in the case of (1) Solida Raiffeisen Immobilien
                                                                           Leasing GmbH and (2) Tech Gate Vienna Wissenschafts-
                                                                           und Technologiepark GmbH against Finanzlandesdirek-
     (a) making use of the target price as an indicator of                      tion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland
          the actual price movements due to the common
          agricultural policy; and
                                                                                                     (Case C-138/00)
     (b) treating the fact that a milk producers’ co-operative in
          that State has achieved for its members milk prices                                        (2000/C 176/19)
          that are below the target price, but are nearer to the
          target price in one period of time than another, as
          supporting a conclusion that the co-operative exercises          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
          market power which contributes to prices being higher            European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
          than they would have reached under more competitive              hof (Higher Administrative Court, Vienna) of 30 March 2000,
          conditions.                                                      received at the Court Registry on 10 April 2000, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of (1) Solida Raiffeisen Immobi-
3. Are Articles 28 to 30, EC (ex Articles 30, 34 and 36) and               lien Leasing GmbH and (2) Tech Gate Vienna Wissenschafts-
     Articles 49 and 55 (ex Articles 59 and 66) to be interpreted          und Technologiepark GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für
     as precluding a Member State from applying national laws              Wien, Niederdösterreich und Burgenland (Tax Board for
     such as the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition                 Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland) on the following
     Act 1998 in such a way as to prohibit a milk producers’               question:
     co-operative which has been found to enjoy market power
     from sending milk produced by its members to be
                                                                           ‘Do payments which a non-member of a capital company
     processed by contractors on its behalf, including in other
                                                                           makes to the company for the acquisition of dividend rights
     Member States, as a step being taken by the co-operative
                                                                           constitute “assets of any kind contributed or to be contributed
     for the purpose of exploiting its position in the market in
                                                                           by the members” within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of
     its favour?
                                                                           Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July concerning indirect
                                                                           taxes on the raising of capital (1)?’
4. Where large vertically-integrated dairy co-operatives exist
     and are permitted to operate in other Member States,
     is the general principle of non-discrimination, whether               (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
     independently or as given specific effect in Articles 12
     and/or 34 EC (ex Articles 6 and 40), to be interpreted as
     precluding a Member State from applying national laws
     such as the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition
     Act 1998 to prohibit a milk producers’ co-operative which
     has been found to enjoy market power from:
     (a) acquiring or building further plant for the processing
          of milk produced by its members, which would give
          the co-operative the ability to exploit still further its        Action brought on 12 April 2000 by the Commission of
          position in the market in its favour; or                         the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                       of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
     (b) sending milk produced by its members to be processed
          by contractors on its behalf, whether within the                                           (Case C-140/00)
          Member State concerned or in other Member States, as
          a step being taken by the co-operative for the purpose
          of exploiting its position in the market in its favour?                                    (2000/C 176/20)
                                                                           An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
(1) EEC Council: Regulation No 26 applying certain rules of compe-         Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice
    tition to production of and trade in agricultural products (OJ 30,     of the European Communities on 12 April 2000 by the
    20.04.62, p. 993 [SE SER1 (59-62) p. 129]).                            Commission of the European Communities, represented by
(2) Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on
    the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products
                                                                           Thomas van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Keir Fitch, an official
    (OJ L 148, 28.6.68, p. 13 [SE SER1 68(I) p. 176]).                     seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service under the arrange-
                                                                           ment for the exchange of national officials, acting as Agents,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                           Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
                                                                           Commission, Centre Wagner.
 ---pagebreak--- C 176/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          24.6.2000
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                               Article 1(2) of Regulation 2241/87 imposed a clear obligation
                                                                          on Member States to take penal or administrative action
                                                                          against any person responsible for a breach of the control
(1) declare that in respect of each of the years 1991 to 1996             and conservation rules. The obligation to impose effective
                                                                          sanctions was made even clearer in Article 31 of Regulation
    — in failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for           2847/93, which required that the sanctions should be capable
          the utilisation of the quota allocated to it,                   of depriving those responsible of the economic benefits
                                                                          of their infringements, and, further, that they should be
                                                                          proportionate to the seriousness of the infringement so as to
    — in not carrying out inspections and other controls as               have a deterrent effect. The United Kingdom has failed to
          required by the relevant Community Regulations,                 impose such sanctions.
    — in failing to provisionally close fisheries when the
          quota was exhausted, and
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983
    — in failing to take administrative or penal action against               establishing a Community system for the conservation and
                                                                              management of fishery resources (OJ L 24, 27.01.1983, p. 1).
          the masters of ships infringing the Regulations, or             (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
          against such other person as was responsible for such               establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
          infringement,                                                       (OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1).
                                                                          (3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-
                                                                              lishing certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ L 207,
    the United Kingdom has failed to carry out the obligations                29.07.1987, p. 1).
    imposed on it by (i) Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC)                 (4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993
    No 170/83 (1) or Article 9(2) of Regulation 3760/92 (2)                   establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries
    (from 1 January 1993) and of Article 1(1) of Regulation                   policy (OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1).
    (EEC) No 2241/87 (3) or Article 2 of Regulation 2847/93 (4)
    (from 1 January 1994); (ii) of Article 11(2) of Regulation
    (EEC) No 2241/87 or Article 21 of Regulation 2847/93;
    (iii) Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) 2241/87 or Article 31
    of Regulation 2847/93;
(2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           hof by order of that court of 3 February 2000 in the
                                                                          case of Ambulanter Pflegedienst Kügler GmbH against
                                                                                           Finanzamt für Körperschaften I
The United Kingdom did not put in place appropriate detailed
rules for the proper utilisation of the quotas allocated to it,
contrary to Article 5(2) of Regulation 170/83 and Article 9(2)                                      (Case C-141/00)
of Regulation 3760/92, with effect from 1 January 1993.
                                                                                                    (2000/C 176/21)
It has been established that the United Kingdom fishermen
frequently exceeded the quotas which were set for them in the
relevant Community regulations and it can only be concluded               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
either that the detailed rules were not appropriate for the               European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
proper utilisation of the quotas or that the United Kingdom               (Federal Finance Court) of 3 February 2000, received at the
did not check that those rules were being complied with.                  Court Registry on 14 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                          the case of Ambulanter Pflegedienst Kügler GmbH against
                                                                          Finanzamt für Körperschaften I on the following questions:
Furthermore, the United Kingdom did not ensure compliance
with Community rules on conservation, contrary to Article                 1. Does the tax exemption provided for in Article 13(A)(1)(c)
1(1) of Regulation 2241/87 (Article 2 of Regulation 2847/93                    of Regulation 77/388/EEC (1) apply only where the medical
from 1 January 1994).                                                          care is provided by an ‘individual’ or is it independent of
                                                                               the legal form of the person providing the care?
In all the cases of overfishing mentioned by the Commission
the United Kingdom did not respect its obligation under                   2. If the exemption is also applicable to capital companies,
Article 11 of Regulation 2241/87 (Article 21 of Regulation                     does it cover wholly or partially the activities of a capital
2847/93 from 1 January 1994) to prohibit the fishery pro-                      company in the form of out-patient nursing (therapeutic
visionally when the quota allocated to it was deemed to have                   treatment, general care and domestic help) which is
been exhausted.                                                                provided by qualified nurses?