CELEX: 62010CN0476
Language: en
Date: 2010-10-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-476/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (Austria) lodged on 1 October 2010 — projektart Errichtungsges mbH, Eva Maria Pepic and Herbert Hilbe v Grundverkehrs-Landeskommission Vorarlberg

4.12.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 328/22
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (Austria) lodged on 1 October 2010 — ‘projektart’ Errichtungsges mbH, Eva Maria Pepic and Herbert Hilbe v Grundverkehrs-Landeskommission Vorarlberg
   (Case C-476/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/38
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants:‘projektart’ Errichtungsges mbH, Eva Pepic and Herbert Hilbe
   
      Defendant: Grundverkehrs-Landeskommission Vorarlberg
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is Article 6(4) of Directive 88/361/EEC (1) of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty, according to which existing national legislation regulating purchases of secondary residences may be upheld, still applicable to the purchase of secondary residences situated in a Member State of the EU by a national of the Principality of Liechtenstein, which forms part of the EEA?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Does national legislation which, on the basis of Article 6(4) of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988, prohibits a national of the Principality of Liechtenstein from purchasing a secondary residence situated in a Member State of the EU conflict with the provisions of the EEA Agreement concerning the free movement of capital, so that a national authority must disregard such national legislation?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1988 L 178, p. 5.