CELEX: C1999/226/32
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-204/99: Action brought on 27 May 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

C 226/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.8.1999
Question 3:                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Does Community law impose requirements as to how Member                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
States should define the expressions ‘damage caused by death                 European Parliament and Council Directive 95/26/EC of
or by personal injuries’ and ‘damage to, or destruction of, any              29 June 1995 amending Directives 77/780/EEC and
item of property’ in Article 9 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC               89/646/EEC in the field of credit institutions, Directives
of 25 July 1985, or are individual Member States free to decide              73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC in the field of non-life
what meaning is to be attached to those expressions?                         insurance, Directives 79/267/EEC and 92/96/EEC in the
                                                                             field of life assurance, Directive 93/22/EEC in the field of
                                                                             investment firms and Directive 85/611/EEC in the field of
                                                                             undertakings for collective investment in transferable
Question 4:                                                                  securities (Ucits), with a view to reinforcing prudential
                                                                             supervision, (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
                                                                             to fulfil its obligations under that directive; and
Must Article 9(a) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1985 be construed as meaning that damage to a human organ                2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
which, at the time when the damage occurred, had been
removed from a donor’s body for immediate transplant into a
certain other person’s body is covered by the expression                 Pleas in law and main arguments
‘damage caused by ... personal injuries’ in relation to the
intended recipient of the organ?                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                         submitted in Case C-168/99 (2) the period prescribed in Article
                                                                         6 of the directive expired on 18 July 1996.
Question 5:
                                                                         (1) OJ 1995 L 168, p. 7.
                                                                         (2) OJ C 264, p. 28.
Must Article 9(b) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1985 be construed as meaning that damage to a human organ
which, at the time when the damage was occasioned, had been
removed from a donor’s body for immediate transplant into a
certain other person’s body is covered by the expression
‘damage to, or destruction of, any item of property’ in relation
to the intended recipient of the organ?                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber
                                                                         of the First Division of the Tribunal Tributário de 1a
                                                                         Instância do Porto, by order of that court of 16 April
                                                                         1999 in the case of SONAE — Tecnologia de Informação
(1) On the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative            S.A. v Direcção Geral dos Registos e Notariado
    provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective
    products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29).
                                                                                                   (Case C-206/99)
                                                                                                   (1999/C 226/33)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the First Chamber of the
                                                                         First Division of the Tribunal Tributário de 1a Instância do
                                                                         Porto (Tax Court of First Instance, Oporto) of 16 April 1999,
                                                                         which was received at the Court Registry on 31 May 1999, for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling in the case of SONAE — Tecnologia de
Action brought on 27 May 1999 by the Commission of                       Informação S.A. v Direcção Geral dos Registos e Notariado
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                      (Directorate General of Registries and of the Notariat), on the
                          Luxembourg                                     following questions:
                        (Case C-204/99)                                  1. May the fees paid for the services of the Directorate General
                                                                             of Registries and of the Notariat be calculated and collected
                                                                             by reference to the amount to which the document relates?
                        (1999/C 226/32)
                                                                             (a) May that amount be unlimited?
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                          (b) May that amount be calculated in the manner to which
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                      Question 1relates if there is an upper limit?
ties on 27 May 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Christina Tufvesson, Legal                   2. In compliance with Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as                 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital,(1) must
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office              the court of the Member State reduce the amount payable
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                    in accordance with the upper limit laid down in national
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                           legislation after the action was taken?