CELEX: C2000/176/21
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-141/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 3 February 2000 in the case of Ambulanter Pflegedienst Kügler GmbH against Finanzamt für Körperschaften I

C 176/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          24.6.2000
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                               Article 1(2) of Regulation 2241/87 imposed a clear obligation
                                                                          on Member States to take penal or administrative action
                                                                          against any person responsible for a breach of the control
(1) declare that in respect of each of the years 1991 to 1996             and conservation rules. The obligation to impose effective
                                                                          sanctions was made even clearer in Article 31 of Regulation
    — in failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for           2847/93, which required that the sanctions should be capable
          the utilisation of the quota allocated to it,                   of depriving those responsible of the economic benefits
                                                                          of their infringements, and, further, that they should be
                                                                          proportionate to the seriousness of the infringement so as to
    — in not carrying out inspections and other controls as               have a deterrent effect. The United Kingdom has failed to
          required by the relevant Community Regulations,                 impose such sanctions.
    — in failing to provisionally close fisheries when the
          quota was exhausted, and
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983
    — in failing to take administrative or penal action against               establishing a Community system for the conservation and
                                                                              management of fishery resources (OJ L 24, 27.01.1983, p. 1).
          the masters of ships infringing the Regulations, or             (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
          against such other person as was responsible for such               establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
          infringement,                                                       (OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1).
                                                                          (3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-
                                                                              lishing certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ L 207,
    the United Kingdom has failed to carry out the obligations                29.07.1987, p. 1).
    imposed on it by (i) Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC)                 (4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993
    No 170/83 (1) or Article 9(2) of Regulation 3760/92 (2)                   establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries
    (from 1 January 1993) and of Article 1(1) of Regulation                   policy (OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1).
    (EEC) No 2241/87 (3) or Article 2 of Regulation 2847/93 (4)
    (from 1 January 1994); (ii) of Article 11(2) of Regulation
    (EEC) No 2241/87 or Article 21 of Regulation 2847/93;
    (iii) Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) 2241/87 or Article 31
    of Regulation 2847/93;
(2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           hof by order of that court of 3 February 2000 in the
                                                                          case of Ambulanter Pflegedienst Kügler GmbH against
                                                                                           Finanzamt für Körperschaften I
The United Kingdom did not put in place appropriate detailed
rules for the proper utilisation of the quotas allocated to it,
contrary to Article 5(2) of Regulation 170/83 and Article 9(2)                                      (Case C-141/00)
of Regulation 3760/92, with effect from 1 January 1993.
                                                                                                    (2000/C 176/21)
It has been established that the United Kingdom fishermen
frequently exceeded the quotas which were set for them in the
relevant Community regulations and it can only be concluded               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
either that the detailed rules were not appropriate for the               European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
proper utilisation of the quotas or that the United Kingdom               (Federal Finance Court) of 3 February 2000, received at the
did not check that those rules were being complied with.                  Court Registry on 14 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                          the case of Ambulanter Pflegedienst Kügler GmbH against
                                                                          Finanzamt für Körperschaften I on the following questions:
Furthermore, the United Kingdom did not ensure compliance
with Community rules on conservation, contrary to Article                 1. Does the tax exemption provided for in Article 13(A)(1)(c)
1(1) of Regulation 2241/87 (Article 2 of Regulation 2847/93                    of Regulation 77/388/EEC (1) apply only where the medical
from 1 January 1994).                                                          care is provided by an ‘individual’ or is it independent of
                                                                               the legal form of the person providing the care?
In all the cases of overfishing mentioned by the Commission
the United Kingdom did not respect its obligation under                   2. If the exemption is also applicable to capital companies,
Article 11 of Regulation 2241/87 (Article 21 of Regulation                     does it cover wholly or partially the activities of a capital
2847/93 from 1 January 1994) to prohibit the fishery pro-                      company in the form of out-patient nursing (therapeutic
visionally when the quota allocated to it was deemed to have                   treatment, general care and domestic help) which is
been exhausted.                                                                provided by qualified nurses?
 ---pagebreak--- 24.6.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 176/13
3. Do the abovementioned services fall within the scope of             represented by J.F. Pasquier, Legal Adviser, and G. Valero
    Article 13(A)(1)(g) of Regulation 77/388/EEC and can a             Jordana, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
    taxable person rely on that provision?                             for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                       Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1. Declare that:
                                                                           — by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure that,
                                                                                within 10 years following the notification of this
                                                                                Directive, the quality of bathing water conforms to the
                                                                                limit values set in accordance with the directive,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                       contrary to Article 4(1) of the directive;
hof by order of that court of 5 April 2000 in the criminal
           proceedings against Matthias Hoffmann                           — by failing to carry out sampling operations, the mini-
                                                                                mum frequency of which is laid down in the Annex in
                                                                                respect of all parameters and all bathing waters,
                        (Case C-144/00)                                         contrary to Article 6(1) of the directive; and
                        (2000/C 176/22)                                    — by failing to carry out the sampling operations for
                                                                                ‘total coliform’, the French Republic has failed to take
                                                                                all the measures necessary to comply with Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          76/160/EEC (1) its obligations under Articles 3, 4, 5
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                          and 6 of the directive;
5 April 2000, received at the Court Registry on 17 April 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against
                                                                           the French Republic has failed to take all the measures
Matthias Hoffmann on the following questions:
                                                                           necessary to comply with its obligations under Directive
                                                                           76/160/EEC and has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1. Is Article 13(A)(1)(n) of the Sixth Council Directive                   Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of that directive.
    77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
    laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —             2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
    common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
    assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) to be interpreted as
    meaning that the term ‘other [recognised] cultural bodies’
    used therein also covers a soloist who supplies cultural           Pleas in law and main arguments
    services?
                                                                       — The Commission finds that a substantial number of
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative:                   bathing areas in 1995 did not conform to the obligations
                                                                           concerning water quality more than 10 years after those
                                                                           obligations entered into force. Moreover, the results avail-
    Do restrictions arise from the heading ‘... activities in the          able for the subsequent years, like those for 1995, do not
    public interest’ chosen in Article 13(A), for example where            conform to water quality standards. Since the directive
    performances by soloists serve primarily commercial pur-               imposes on the Member States a clear and unconditional
    poses?                                                                 obligation as to the result to be achieved, namely as regards
                                                                           ensuring that the value limits are complied with, the
                                                                           Commission finds that the French Republic has failed to
                                                                           fulfil its obligations under the directive.
                                                                       — Despite the fact that sampling is clearly and uncon-
                                                                           ditionally required to be carried out by the competent
                                                                           authorities of the Member States under Community law,
Action brought on 17 April 2000 by the Commission of                       no steps have yet been taken to remedy the complaint that
 the European Communities against the French Republic                      sampling has been carried out insufficiently frequently in
                                                                           respect of all French parameters and bathing waters.
                        (Case C-147/00)                                    Finally, the Commission considers that it is unjustified to
                                                                           calculate and present to the public a figure relating to
                        (2000/C 176/23)                                    conformity arrived at by taking account only of the such
                                                                           parameters as have been correctly measured. The method
                                                                           used by the French authorities amounts to ignoring the
An action against the French Republic was brought before the               fact that certain areas which have been incorrectly sampled
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 April                   could well not be in conformity with the absolute value
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        limits laid down by the directive.