CELEX: C1999/188/44
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-148/99: Action brought on 22 April 1999 by the United Kingdom against the Commission of the European Communities

C 188/20               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         3.7.1999
     effected after the entry into force of the guidelines for         3) In the absence of appropriate technical and/or scientific
     the application of flat-rate adjustments fixed by the                  justification for the limitation, the limitation of the area
     Commission. In any event, in its final report the concili-             for which aid was payable under the Scheme must be
     ation body itself expressed the view that the Commission               considered as arbitrary. Accordingly, to the extent that it
     had not given sufficient reasons for applying the 25% rate.            limits aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the
                                                                            contested decision is inadequately reasoned, arbitrary and
                                                                            thereby contrary to Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
(1) OJ No L 61 of 10.3.1999, p. 37.
                                                                       4) The contested decision is a legislative act which retro-
                                                                            actively imposes a limitation of 100 ha under the Scheme
                                                                            contrary to the fundamental principles of legal certainty
                                                                            and legitimate expectations. Accordingly, to the extent that
                                                                            it limits the aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the
                                                                            contested decision is void.
Action brought on 22 April 1999 by the United Kingdom
  against the Commission of the European Communities                   (1) of 28 April 1989, laying down detailed rules concerning the aid
                                                                           for fibre flax and hemp, OJ L 121,29.04.89, p. 4.
                                                                       (2) of the Council of 29 June 1970 on the common organisation of
                         (Case C-148/99)                                   the market in flax and hemp, OJ English Special Edition 1970(II),
                                                                           p. 411.
                         (1999/C 188/44)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 22 April 1999 by the United Kingdom,
represented by Mr John E. Collins, Assistant Treasury Solicitor,
acting as agent, assisted by Mr Alastair Sutton, Barrister of the
Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14, boulevard Roosevelt.            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
                                                                       gerichtshof by order of that court of 23 March 1999 in
                                                                       the case of Johannes Blachnitzky v Landes- Grundver-
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            kehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung
— annul those parts of the contested decision which disallow
     the sum of £869,283.00 from the monies allocated to the                                     (Case C-149/99)
     United Kingdom under the scheme set out in Commission
     Regulation 1164/89/EEC (1);
                                                                                                 (1999/C 188/45)
— order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom’s costs.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        shof (Administrative Court), Austria, of 23 March 1999, which
                                                                       was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 1999, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Johannes Blachnitzky v
                                                                       Landes-Grundverkehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler Lan-
1) Regulation 1164/89/EEC contains no provision limiting
                                                                       desregierung on the following questions:
     Member States’ discretion in deciding on the relevant
     parameters for reviewing the varieties they decide to
     introduce under the Regulation. There is nothing in the           1. Is Article 1(1) of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June
     Regulation which imposes a limit of 100 ha (nor even any               1990 on the right of residence (1) in conjunction with
     mention of acreage limitations). The contested decision is             Articles 2(3) and 3 of that directive and possibly in
     based on a misinterpretation of the Regulation and is                  conjunction with Article 6 of the EC Treaty to be
     therefore illegal to the extent that it imposes a limit of             interpreted as meaning that a directly effective right of
     100 ha on the aid payable under the Scheme.                            nationals of another Member State of the European Union
                                                                            to acquire land as a principal residence is in principle to be
2) In taking the contested decision, the Commission in effect               derived therefrom?
     introduced a legislative measure having the effect of
     limiting the scope of Regulation 1164/89/EEC. It did so in        2. Does the acquisition of land by a national of another
     the guise of an administrative decision. It failed to follow           Member State of the European Union in a Member State
     the procedures under Article 12 of Regu-                               for which he possesses a corresponding residence permit
     lation 1308/70/EEC (2). Accordingly, to the extent that it             for nationals of an EU Member State and where he has
     limits the aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the                 his principal residence come under the provisions of
     contested decision is void for manifest lack of competence             Article 73b(l) of the EC Treaty on free movement of capital
     and/or infringement of an essential procedural require-                or those of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988
     ment, in particular of the procedures provided for in                  for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (2) (the
     Article 12 of Regulation 1308/70/EEC.                                  capital transfer directive)?