CELEX: C1998/041/22
Language: en
Date: 1998-02-07 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-409/97)

7.2.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 41/11
3. If so:                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                   Gerichtshof by order of that court of 22 October 1997 in
                                                                   the case of Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler
    Should Article 522 in conjunction with Article 526(4)          Landesregierung v. (1) Adolf Sparber, (2) Atelier Delta
    of the Provisions implementing the Community                   Entwurf- und Planungsgesellschaft mbH in liquidation, (3)
    Customs Code, in the versions enacted by Article 1,            Hans-Eberhard Junkersdorf and (4) Maria-Margareta
    points 16 and 18, of Commission Regulation (EC)                                          Junkersdorf
    No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994 (OJ L 346,
    31.12.1994, p. 1), also be applied to customs                                         (Case C-407/97)
    declarations before 7 January 1995?                                                     (98/C 41/21)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Oberster
                                                                   Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 22 October
                                                                   1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission                5 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of             Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung
                         Luxembourg                                v. (1) Adolf Sparber, (2) Atelier Delta Entwurf- und
                       (Case C-406/97)                             Planungsgesellschaft mbH in liquidation, (3) Hans-
                                                                   Eberhard      Junkersdorf      and   (4)  Maria-Margareta
                         (98/C 41/20)                              Junkersdorf on the following question:
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                Is Article 70 of the Act concerning the conditions of
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
Communities on 4 December 1997 by the Commission of                Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin,             to the Treaties on which the European Union is
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for         founded (1), which provides that notwithstanding the
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la          obligations under the treaties on which the European
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.              Union is founded the Republic of Austria may maintain its
                                                                   existing legislation regarding secondary residences for five
                                                                   years from the date of accession (1 January 1995), to be
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        interpreted as meaning that the transitional provisions
                                                                   in paragraph 40(2) and (5) of the Tiroler
                                                                   Grundverkehrsgesetz 1996 (Landesgesetzblatt für Tirol
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force           No 61/1996), which entered into force on 1 October
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or          1996, fall within the definition of existing legislation, or
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with             are those provisions to be regarded as new legislation
    Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the             if, as a result of decisions of the Austrian
    return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the         Verfassungsgerichtshof, the provisions of previous Tyrol
    territory of a Member State (1), or by failing to inform       laws on the sale of land were not applicable in the present
    the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of                     case?
    Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    that Directive,
                                                                   (1) OJ C 241, 29.8.1994, p. 1.
Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
    costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                                         Luxembourg
paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty requires
                                                                                          (Case C-409/97)
Member States to adopt the measures necessary to
transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic                                  (98/C 41/22)
law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing
so. In the present case, that period expired on
15 December 1993 without the Grand Duchy of                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
provisions.                                                        Communities on 5 December 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities, represented by Marie
                                                                   Wolfcarius, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
(1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993, p. 74.
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                   Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                   Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 41/12                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.2.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission
                                                                             of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                             Republic of Germany
1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                                     (Case C-413/97)
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992                                              (98/C 41/24)
     on the introduction of measures to encourage
     improvements in the safety and health at work of
     pregnant workers and workers who have recently                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     given birth or are breastfeeding (1), the Grand Duchy             brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations                Communities on 4 December 1997 by the Commission of
     under that Directive;                                             the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin,
                                                                       of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                       Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
     costs.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                            or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                            Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                      return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the
those relied upon in Case C-406/97 (2), the time-limit for                  territory of a Member State (1), or by failing to inform
transposition expired on 19 October 1994.                                   the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of
                                                                            Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            Article 18 of that Directive;
(1) OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.
(2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.
                                                                       2. order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                            costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                      The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
Circondariale di Bologna by order of that court of                     paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty requires
29 November 1997 in the case of E.D. Srl against Italo                 Member States to adopt the measures necessary to
                            Fenocchio                                  transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
                                                                       law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing
                        (Case C-412/97)                                so. In the present case, that period expired on
                                                                       15 December 1993 without the Grand Duchy of
                          (98/C 41/23)
                                                                       Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary
                                                                       provisions (2).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993, p. 74.
European Communities by order of the Pretura                           (2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.
Circondariale       (Magistrates       Court),   Bologna,     of
29 November 1997, received at the Court Registry on
5 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
E.D. Srl against Italo Fenocchio on the following question:
                                                                       Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission
Must the prohibition of issuing an ingiunzione (summary                of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
order) where the same is to be served outside the Republic                                            Spain
or territories subject to Italian sovereignty Ð that
prohibition being laid down by the last paragraph of                                           (Case C-414/97)
Article 633 of the Code of Civil Procedure Ð be regarded                                         (98/C 41/25)
as a restriction or equivalent measure capable of
hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, the
free movement of goods, services and capital guaranteed                An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
by Articles 34, 59 and 73b of the Treaty of Rome?                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                       on 15 December 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Miguel Díaz-
                                                                       Llanos La Roche, Legal Adviser, and Carlos Gómez de la