CELEX: C1999/071/08
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 26 November 1998 in the case of Sutterlüty Gesellschaft mbH & Co against the Vorarlberg Landesregierung, with the following parties joined in the proceedings: the town of Dornbirn, the municipality of Bludesch, the municipality of Rankweil and the municipality of Lochau (Case C-460/98)

C 71/4                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
     certification was annulled, this could only give rise to        on 15 December 1998 by the Commission of the
     the legitimate expectation on the part of the appellant         European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
     that the Commission would endorse the DAFSE's                   Goulousis, Legal Adviser, and Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
     certification                                                   Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Ð Misappraisal of the facts
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on        The Commission claims that the Court should:
    the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC on the tasks of
    the European Social Fund (OJ L 289, 20.10.1983, p. 1).
(2) Case T-85/94 Branco v Commission [1995] ECR II-45.
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force and to
                                                                         communicate to the Commission within the time-limit
                                                                         laid down the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                         provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
                                                                         Directive 96/97/EC (1) of 20 December 1996 amending
                                                                         Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the
                                                                         principle of equal treatment for men and women in
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen
                                                                         occupational social security schemes, the Hellenic
Käräjäoikeus by judgment of that court of 31 March 1998
                                                                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
in the case of Finnish State/Tullihallitus v Kaupo Salumets
                                                                         EC Treaty;
                            and Others
                        (Case C-455/98)
                         (1999/C 71/06)                              Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Communities by a judgment of the Tampereen
Käräjäoikeus (Tampere District Court) of 31 March 1998,
which was received at the Court Registry on 14 December
                                                                     The Member States are required by the binding character
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finnish                of the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of
State/Tullihallitus v Kaupo Salumets and Others on the               the EC Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose
following question:
                                                                     directives into national law before the expiry of the period
                                                                     laid down for that purpose and to communicate those
                                                                     measures immediately to the Commission. That period
Are the European Community tax directives Council                    expired on 1 July 1997 without the Hellenic Republic
Directive 92/12/EEC (1), Council Directive 92/83/EEC (2)             having communicated to the Commission the provisions
and Council Directive 77/388/EEC (3) and the customs                 transposing the directive at issue into national law.
code Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (4) to be
interpreted as meaning that the provisions concerning tax
liability and customs debts apply to the smuggling of                (1) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 20.
liquor?
(1) OJ  L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ  L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.
(3) OJ  L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
(4) OJ  L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
                                                                     gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of
                                                                     26 November 1998 in the case of Sutterlüty Gesellschaft
                                                                     mbH & Co against the Vorarlberg Landesregierung,
                                                                     with the following parties joined in the proceedings: the
                                                                     town of Dornbirn, the municipality of Bludesch, the
Action brought on 15 December 1998 by the Commission                  municipality of Rankweil and the municipality of Lochau
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                             Republic                                                       (Case C-460/98)
                        (Case C-457/98)                                                      (1999/C 71/08)
                         (1999/C 71/07)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                  European Communities by order of the Verwaltungs-
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities              gerichtshof, Vienna (Higher Administrative Court, Vienna)
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 71/5
of 26 November 1998, received at the Court Registry on              The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
17 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Sutterlüty Gesellschaft mbH & Co v the Vorarlberg Lan-
desregierung, with the following parties joined in the              1) Set aside the contested judgment on the ground that it
proceedings: the town of Dornbirn, the municipality of                  is incorrect in law in that the principle requiring a
Bludesch, the market municipality of Rankweil and the                   prior hearing was misapplied, without prejudice to the
municipality of Lochau on the following question:                       part of the judgment which upheld in part
                                                                        Mediocurso's application in Case T-180/96;
In the event that the Court of Justice of the European
Communities answers the questions referred to it in the
order of 18 December 1997, Nos 97/16/0221 and 0021,                 2) Consequently, in view of the Commission's breach of
(Case C-437/97 (1)) at least partially in the affirmative, the          the same principle, annul Commission Decisions (C)
following further question is referred for a preliminary                1185 and (C) 1186, both of 14 August 1996, which
ruling:                                                                 were the subject of the proceedings in Cases T-180/96
                                                                        and T-181/96 respectively;
Is Section 82(2) of the Vorarlberg Abgabenverfahrens-
gesetz (Vorarlberg Law of Tax Procedure), which allows a            3) If it should reject the claims made in the foregoing
taxable person to correct a declaration made under                      paragraphs, set aside the contested judgment to the
Section 82(1) of that Law only if he does so within one                 extent to which it upholds the decisions adopted by
month of submitting the declaration, and also sets a                    the Commission, in both cases, which treat as
deadline of one month from the submission of the                        ineligible, in their entirety, both the expenditure
declaration for the taxable person to apply for the amount              relating to the remuneration paid to the teaching staff
of duty to be determined by notice of assessment altering               (sub-heading 14.3.1.a) and the expenditure relating to
the amount arrived at by the taxable person himself                     the VAT        chargeable on that remuneration
(except in cases where the requirements for reopening                   (sub-heading 14.3.13), this plea in annulment being
proceedings are met), incompatible with the case-law of                 based on:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(judgment in Case C-312/93 Peterbroeck, Van
Campenhout & Cie SCS v Belgium [1995] ECR I-4599)                       Ð material inaccuracy of the findings of fact made by
and thus with the application of Community law, in                          the Court of First Instance;
particular the implementation of the procedure under
Article 177 of the Treaty?
                                                                        Ð error of law deriving from inconsistency of the
                                                                            grounds of the judgment and breach of the
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998, p. 6.
                                                                            principle of proportionality;
                                                                    4) Consequently, for the same reasons, annul
                                                                        Commission Decisions (C) 1185 and (C) 1186, both of
                                                                        14 August 1996, to the extent to which they treat as
Appeal brought on 17 December 1998 by Mediocurso Ð                      ineligible, in their entirety, both the expenditure
Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular SA against the                     relating to the remuneration paid to the teaching staff
judgment delivered on 15 September 1998 by the Third                    (sub-heading 14.3.1.a) and the expenditure relating to
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  the VAT        chargeable on that remuneration
Communities in Joined Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96                       (sub-heading 14.3.13);
Mediocurso Ð Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular Lda v
        Commission of the European Communities
                      (Case C-462/98 P)                             5) Annul paragraph 4 of the operative part of the
                                                                        contested judgment to the extent to which it requires
                        (1999/C 71/09)                                  Mediocurso to pay its own costs in Case T-180/96;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 September            6) Annul paragraph 5 of the operative part of the
1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance                contested judgment to the extent to which it requires
of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-180/96                    Mediocurso to pay its own costs in Case T-181/96.
and T-181/96 Mediocurso Ð Estabelecimento de Ensino
Particular Lda v Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 17 December 1998 by                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Mediocurso Ð Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular SA,
represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, of the Lisbon Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    Ð First, the applicant maintains that the Court of First
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                                   Instance erred in law in considering, on the basis of