CELEX: C2000/020/20
Language: en
Date: 2000-01-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-409/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the, Austria, by order of that court of 22 September 1999 in the cases of: 1. Metropol Treuhand WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark and 2. Michael Stadler against Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg

C 20/10                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.1.2000
— misuse of powers inasmuch as the suspension order                         of Directive 96/54/EC expired on 31 March 1998 and the
     was based on grounds other than those laid down in                     Kingdom of Belgium had not adopted the necessary measures
     Article 88(3) EC;                                                      to comply with the amendments to Annexes I and III to
                                                                            Directive 67/548/EEC.
— declaration that the aid existed and was unlawful vitiated
     by uncertainty and lacks investigation and a statement of
     reasons. No reference to facts.
                                                                            (1) OJ L 248 of 30.9.1996, p. 1.
(1) SG(99)D6463 on the opening of the formal inquiry into aid
    granted by the Italian Republic to undertakings belonging to the
    Tirrenia di Navigazione, in so far as it suspends such aid which it
    declares unlawful.
(2) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the, Austria, by
                                                                            order of that court of 22 September 1999 in the cases of:
                                                                            1. Metropol Treuhand WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH against
                                                                            Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark and 2. Michael
                                                                                Stadler against Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg
Action brought on 22 October 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Belgium                                                               (Case C-409/99)
                           (Case C-405/99)                                                            (2000/C 20/20)
                            (2000/C 20/19)                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                            hof (Administrative Court), Austria of 22 September 1999
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                        received at the Court Registry on 26 October 1999, for a
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                     preliminary ruling in the cases of: 1. Metropol Treuhand
on 22 October 1999 by the Commission of the European                        WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,                 Steiermark and 2. Michael Stadler against Finanzlandesdirek-
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               tion für Vorarlberg on the following question:
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            1. Is subparagraph 2 of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Direc-
                                                                                 tive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                     of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
                                                                                 to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from
— Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations                    excluding the right to deduct input tax in respect of certain
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                      vehicles after the entry into force of the directive, if before
     Commission Directive 96/54/EC of 30 July 1996 adapting                      its entry into force input tax was deductible in respect of
     to technical progress for the twenty-second time Council                    those vehicles by virtue of the administrative authorities’
     Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws,                      actual practice?
     regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
     classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous sub-              2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is the first sentence of
     stances, (1) in particular Article 1(1) and (2) and Article 2(1)            Article 17(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
     thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                    17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
     obligations under that directive;                                           Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted
                                                                                 as meaning that a Member State may, without prior
— Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                                 consultation under Article 29 of the directive, add to the
                                                                                 exclusions from the right to deduct input tax in the manner
                                                                                 described in Question 1 in order to consolidate the budget?
Pleas in law and main arguments
It follows from the binding nature of directives, laid down in              (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
the third paragraph of Article 249 and the first paragraph of
Article 10 EC, that Member States to which directives are
addressed are obliged to achieve the results provided for within
the periods prescribed. The period prescribed by Article 2(1)