CELEX: C2001/212/26
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-211/01: Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against Council of the European Union

28.7.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 212/15
3.    If Question 2 is answered in the negative: Is it contrary to       their transposition. That time-limit expired on 15 June 1999
      Article 48 of the EC Treaty if an EC official living in            without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
      Luxembourg who is deemed to be resident in Germany                 necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
      and pays contributions in Luxembourg to the statutory              referred to in the Commission’s application.
      pension insurance scheme for a household help is not
      entitled to deduct special expenditure under Para-
      graph 10(1)(8) of the Einkommensteuergesetz?                       (1) OJ L 71, 10.3.1998, p. 1.
4.    If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative: May the
      principles developed in the judgment in Case C-112/91
      Werner [1993] ECR I-429 be applied to the present case?
                                                                         Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities against Council of the European
                                                                                                       Union
                                                                                                 (Case C-211/01)
Action brought on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of                                               (2001/C 212/26)
 the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                         An action against Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                         (Case C-210/01)                                 23 May 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties, represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2001/C 212/25)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the            —     annul the Council decisions of 19 March 2001 concern-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 May                         ing the conclusion of the agreement between the Euro-
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            pean Community and Bulgaria and Hungary (1) on trans-
represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Roberto Amorosi, acting as                    port inasmuch as they are based on Article 93 EC whereas
Agents.                                                                        the necessary and sufficient legal basis is Article 71 EC;
                                                                         —     maintain the effects of those agreements until the Council
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    adopts new measures;
                                                                         —     order the Council to pay the costs.
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
      mission Directive 98/11/EC of 27 January 1998                      Pleas in law and main arguments
      implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard
      to energy labelling of household lamps (1) or, in any              The proper legal basis for the adoption of the transport
      event, by failing to forward them to the Commission, the           agreements referred to is Article 71 EC, the only basis required
      Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under that       by the primary objective of the said instruments. The fiscal
      directive; and                                                     element must form an integral part of those agreements
                                                                         because it is involved in the objective of implementing the
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                       common transport policy. Its role is to ensure that the system
                                                                         of reciprocal authorisations, created under the agreements, is
                                                                         run in a non-discriminatory manner.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The concurrent use of Article 93 EC as a legal basis is precluded
                                                                         by the fact that Article 71 requires only qualified majority
                                                                         voting in the Council, whereas Article 93 requires unanimity.
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                 Admittedly, the problem regarding consultation of the Euro-
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon        pean Parliament has not arisen in practice in light of
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are            Article 300(3) which governs the conclusion of international
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for          agreements. Nevertheless the possibility remains since the
 ---pagebreak--- C 212/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
requirement of unanimity of the Council would radically                  Action brought on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of
change the procedure for concluding such transport agree-                the European Communities against the Federal Republic
ments, which are normally subject to qualified majority voting.                                     of Germany
(1) Council Decision 2001/265/EC concerning the conclusion of the
    Agreement between the European Community and the Republic                                     (Case C-214/01)
    of Bulgaria establishing certain conditions for the carriage of
    goods by road and the promotion of combined transport (OJ
    2001 L 108, p. 4).
    Council Decision 2001/266/EC concerning the conclusion of the
    Agreement between the European Community and the Republic                                     (2001/C 212/28)
    of Hungary establishing certain conditions for the carriage of
    goods by road and the promotion of combined transport (OJ
    2001 L 108, p. 4).
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, legal adviser,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of G.
                                                                         Berscheid, legal adviser, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Innsbruck (Austria) by order of that court of 9 May 2001                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
in the case of Margarete Unterpertinger v Pensionsver-
                sicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter                           1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary
                                                                               to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6, 7 and 9 of
                         (Case C-212/01)                                       Council Directive 89/618/Euratom (1) of 27 November
                                                                               1989 on informing the general public about health
                                                                               protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken
                         (2001/C 212/27)                                       in the event of a radiological emergency, the Federal
                                                                               Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         under that directive.
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht Inns-
bruck (District Court) of 9 May 2001 which was received at               2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
the Court Registry on 23 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Margarete Unterpertinger against Pensionsver-
sicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter on the following questions:
1.    Is Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive
      (77/388/EEC) (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation               Pleas in law and main arguments
      of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
      taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
      basis of assessment, to be interpreted as meaning that the
      exemption from value added tax provided for therein
                                                                         —     Incorrect transposition of Article 6 of the directive: The
      does not apply to turnover from the activity of a doctor
                                                                               requirement under Article 6 to inform the population
      which consists in determining the disability or ability of
                                                                               affected has not been ensured by means of binding legal
      a person applying for a pension?
                                                                               provisions in Germany. Article 6 is, however, of central
2.    Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European                  importance in order to achieve the objective set out in
      Communities in Case C-384/98 D v W to be interpreted                     Article 1 of improving the health protection of the
      as meaning that medical examinations and expert                          population; for the effectiveness of those provisions of
      opinions based on them for the purpose of establishing                   the directive it is therefore important that the content
      or excluding disability, incapacity to work or invalidity                and scope of the authorities’ obligations to inform the
      do not fall within the scope of application of the provision             public are sufficiently clear and are not a matter of choice
      referred to in Question 1 above, whether or not the                      by the administrative authorities, as is the case with an
      doctor who acts as an expert is instructed by a court or a               administrative instruction.
      pension insurance institution?
                                                                         —     Failure to implement Article 7 of the directive: In the
                                                                               Commission’s view legally binding provisions are also
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                                 necessary in order to implement Article 7 of the directive.
                                                                               The provision made there for persons involved in emerg-
                                                                               ency assistance to be informed is not, however, ensured
                                                                               in Germany by means of binding legal provisions.