CELEX: C2003/158/14
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-167/03: Action brought on 10 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

C 158/8                    EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                               5.7.2003
1.    Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,              of ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure, and
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to              repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom, the French Republic has
      comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May                         failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of
      the health of workers and the general public against the dangers        2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
      arising from ionising radiation, the French Republic has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                              hof by order of that Court of 13 November 2002 in the
                                                                              case of Hans-Jürgen and Monique Ritter-Coulais against
                                                                                                        Finanzamt Gersheim
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                  (Case C-152/03)
                            (Fourth Chamber)                                                               (2003/C 158/13)
                             of 15 May 2003
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
in Case C-484/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                        ties v French Republic ( 1)                           (Federal Tax Court) of 13 November 2002, received at the
                                                                              Court Registry on 2 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                  the case of Hans-Jürgen and Monique Ritter-Coulais against
97/43/Euratom — Health protection of individuals against                      Finanzamt Gersheim on the following questions:
the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical
                                                                              1.    Is it contrary to Article 43 and Article 56 of the
            exposure — Incomplete implementation)
                                                                                    Treaty establishing the European Community if, when
                                                                                    determining his taxable income, a natural person who
                             (2003/C 158/12)                                        has full tax liability in Germany and who receives
                                                                                    employment income there is not allowed to deduct in
                       (Language of the case: French)                               Germany losses incurred in another Member State from
                                                                                    leasing and letting property?
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        2.    If that question is answered in the negative: is it contrary
                      in the European Court Reports)                                to Article 43 and Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the
                                                                                    European Community if such losses cannot be taken into
                                                                                    account for the purposes of the negative tax progression
                                                                                    clause (negativer Progressionsvorbehalt)?
In Case C-484/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. Tricot) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
and C. Isidoro): Application for a declaration that by failing to
adopt and, in any event, by failing to communicate to
the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/43/
Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals                   Action brought on 10 April 2003 by the Commission of
against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical              the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom (OJ 1997
L 180, p. 22), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber),                                              (Case C-167/03)
composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola, Judges;                                                      (2003/C 158/14)
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it:
                                                                              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
1.    Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 April
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to        2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      comply with Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June                  represented by M. Van Beek and M. Konstandinidi, of its Legal
      1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers            Service.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.7.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 158/9
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              country (restricted tax liability) are subject to a tax at source of
                                                                          such a nature that a basic allowance or other allowance
—     declare that, by failing to bring into force a system of full       for personal circumstances is not granted, whereas persons
      protection for certain species in Annex II to Council               resident in the country are entitled to such an allowance at the
      Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-                 time of ordinary assessment to income tax in respect of all
      vation of wild birds (1), as amended by Council Directive           income which they receive in the Member State and abroad
      94/24/EC of 8 June 1994 ( 2), the Hellenic Republic has             (full tax liability), but where the first mentioned person’s lack
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the             of right to a basic allowance is taken into account, inter alia,
      directive;                                                          by means of a tax rate which is lower than the rate applicable
                                                                          for taxable persons resident in the country?
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that the Hellenic Republic did not
correctly apply Article 7(4) of the directive, since, because late
dates were fixed for the end of the hunting season, it did not
bring into force a system of full protection for certain species          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
in Annex II to the directive. A percentage of those birds,                richtshof by order of that Court of 31 March 2003 in the
smaller or greater according to species, is not protected from            appeal by Dr. Wolfgang Heiser against Finanzlandesdirek-
hunting activities in the period when they move in search of a                                        tion für Tirol
mate during which their survival is particularly threatened. In
reality such a system does not ensure the full protection of
birds during the stage when they move to their rearing
                                                                                                    (Case C-172/03)
grounds, in infringement of Article 7(4) of the directive.
( 1) OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1.                                                                   (2003/C 158/16)
( 2) OJ L 164 of 30.6.1994, p. 9.
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                          hof (Supreme Administrative Court) of 31 March 2003,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten                 preliminary ruling in the appeal by Dr. Wolfgang Heiser
by order of that Court of 10 April 2003 in the case of                    against Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol (Regional Finance
        Florian W. Wallentin against Riksskatteverket                     Directorate for the Tyrol) (Appeal Senate I) on the following
                                                                          question:
                         (Case C-169/03)
                         (2003/C 158/15)                                  Is State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC (formerly
                                                                          Article 92 of the EC Treaty) implied by the existence of a rule
                                                                          such as that contained in Article XIV (3) of Federal Law BGBl
                                                                          21/1995, as amended by BGBl 756/1996, whereby in the case
                                                                          of medical practitioners the conversion from turnover liable
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          to turnover tax to turnover exempt from turnover tax does
European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 10 April 2003, received at              not, in the case of goods that continue to be used in the
                                                                          business, result in input tax already deducted being reduced
the Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                          under Article 20 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC ( 1)?
in the case of Florian W. Walentin against Riksskatteverket on
the following question:
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
Is Article 39 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as precluding a
Member State’s legislation which provides that natural persons
who are not regarded as resident in the country for tax
purposes but who receive income from employment in the