CELEX: 62010CN0516
Language: en
Date: 2010-10-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-516/10: Action brought on 29 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

15.1.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 13/21
            
         Action brought on 29 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-516/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/38
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and E. Montaguti, acting as Agents)
   
      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare that, by maintaining in force Paragraph 5 in conjunction with Paragraph 2(3) and (4) and Paragraph 6(2)(g) of the VGVG, the Republic of Austria has infringed Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Declare that, by maintaining in force Paragraph 6(2)(d) in conjunction with Paragraph 2(3) and (4) of the VGVG, the Republic of Austria has infringed Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The Commission does not question the fact that Member States may restrict the purchase of plots of land on grounds of public interest. However, the provisions of the Vorarlberger Grundverkehrsgesetz (VGVG) cited in the forms of order sought constitute a disproportionate restriction on the free movement of capital and the right of establishment.
   In particular, the so-called Interessentenregel (‘interested parties rule’), according to which the VGVG landowners take precedence in purchases of agricultural land over non-landowners, is disproportionate. The continued agricultural use of the land can, according to the defendant, thus be guaranteed if the potential purchaser is willing to lease the land on a long-term basis to the previous tenant.
   Similarly, it is not apparent why the interested parties rule should also apply where the previous owner includes his plot of land as an asset in kind in an undertaking or a foundation, although the continued agricultural use of the land is ensured.
   In the view of the Commission, it is also disproportionate that the abovementioned interested parties rule is repeatedly applied where the purchase is not completed for reasons unconnected with the vendor.
   Finally, the Commission disputes that the VGVG does not provide for any kind of regulation which permits, in the case of a lack of interest from landowners in the exploitation of a plot of agricultural land, that land to be sold without an obligation on the purchaser to use it for agricultural purposes.