CELEX: C1998/072/11
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-07 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Wien by order of that court of 18 December 1997 in the cases of (1) Evangelischer Krankenhausverein Wien v. Abgabenberufungskommission and (2) Ikera Warenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v. Oberösterreichische Landesregierung (Case C-437/97)

C 72/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.3.98
   (c)   Does Article 4(2) of the directive, in conjunction          6. If the directive has been incorrectly transposed, is
         with Article 2(1) thereof, allow a Member State                 Article 4(2) thereof in conjunction with Article 2(1)
         to specify (or to fail to specify) types of project or          vertically directly effective (self-executing) in the sense
         criteria and/or thresholds so that the remodelling              that the authorities of the Member State are required
         of an airport with a runway shorter than                        to subject the projects at issue to an environmental
         2 100 metres is excluded from environmental                     assessment?
         assessment from the outset although it is
         environmentally significant, or is the margin of
         discretion which the Member State enjoys under              (1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
         Article 4(2) of the directive (if (b) is answered in
         the affirmative) thereby exceeded?
2. Is Article 4(2) of the directive, in conjunction with
   Article 2(1), to be interpreted as meaning that the
   obligation to carry out an environmental assessment
                                                                     Reference      for    a     preliminary     ruling    by    the
   also applies to the extension and remodelling of the
                                                                     Verwaltungsgerichtshof Wien by order of that court of
   projects in Annex II if significant effects on the
                                                                     18 December 1997 in the cases of (1) Evangelischer
   environment are likely, or do Articles 4(2) and 2(1)
                                                                     Krankenhausverein Wien v. Abgabenberufungskommission
   allow environmentally significant projects comprising
                                                                     and (2) Ikera Warenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.
   remodelling to be excluded, expressly or impliedly (for
                                                                                 Oberösterreichische Landesregierung
   example by rules which are not applicable to airports),
   from environmental assessment from the outset?                                           (Case C-437/97)
                                                                                              (98/C 72/11)
3. To what extent does      Article 2(1) of the directive, also
   in conjunction with      Article 2(2), allow the Member
   States to introduce      (or use) alternative assessment
   procedures to that        of an ordinary environmental            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
   assessment and if a      positive answer is given to this         European        Communities        by      order     of     the
   question:                                                         Verwaltungsgerichtshof Wien (Administrative Court,
                                                                     Vienna) of 18 December 1997, received at the Court
                                                                     Registry on 24 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling
   (a) what essential requirements or minimum                        in the cases of (1) Evangelischer Krankenhausverein Wien
         requirements must such an assessment satisfy in             (Protestant Hospital Society, Vienna) v. Abgabenberu-
         order to accord with the objectives of the                  fungskommission (Tax Appeals Commission) and (2) Ikera
         directive and, in particular,                               Warenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v. Oberösterreichische
                                                                     Landesregierung (Regional Government of Upper Austria)
                                                                     on the following questions:
   (b) is the participation of the public within the
         meaning of Article 6 of the directive an essential
         requirement of an environmental assessment?
                                                                     1. Does Article 33(1) of the Sixth Council Directive of
                                                                         17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                         Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common
4. May Article 1(5) of the directive be interpreted as also              system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
   covering projects which, while provided for in a                      (77/388/EEC) (1) preclude the maintenance in force of
   legislative provision which sets out a programme, are                 a levy on the supply for consideration of ice cream
   approved under a separate administrative procedure?                   (including fruits processed therein or added thereto)
                                                                         and beverages, in each case including the containers
                                                                         and accessories sold therewith, the rate of such levy
   What minimum environmental requirements must the                      being 10 % of the consideration in the case of ice
   legislative process' contain in order to achieve the                 cream and alcoholic beverages and 5 % of the
   objectives . . . including that of supplying information'            consideration in the case of non-alcoholic beverages,
   pursued by the directive?                                             where the consideration for the purposes of the
                                                                         relevant provisions of turnover tax law is measured in
                                                                         such a way as to exclude value added tax, service
5. Is the exclusion of projects from the scope of the                    charges and beverage duty?
   directive pursuant to Article 1(4) to be applied to an
   airfield used for both civil and military purposes?
                                                                     2. Do Article 3(2) or the second sentence of Article 3(3)
                                                                         of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (2) (Excise duties
   Could the applicable criterion be the predominant use                 directive) of 25 February 1992 preclude the
   or is it sufficient for the exclusion to apply that the               maintenance in force of a levy such as described in
   airfield is also used for military purposes?                          Question 1?
 ---pagebreak--- 7.3.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 72/7
3. Does Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty preclude a                    Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court) of
    provision exempting the sale of wine direct from the             18 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
    vineyard from beverage duty?'                                    29 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                     Sandoz GesmbH v. Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                       Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Regional Finance Office
(2) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.                                        for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland) on the
                                                                     following questions:
                                                                     1. Do Article 73b in conjunction with Article 73d (in
                                                                         particular, Article 73d(3)) of the EC Treaty and
Reference      for    a     preliminary    ruling    by    the           Article 1(1) in conjunction with Article 4 of Directive
Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of               88/361/EEC (1) concerning the movement of capital
10 December 1997 in the appeals brought by Holger                        preclude the continued application of the first sentence
Warnecke, Dirk Schultz, Rudolf Weinzierl, Johann                         of the fourth subparagraph of Paragraph 33 TP 8 of
Schachtner,       Konrad       Sonnleitner      and     Ulrich           the 1957 Gebührengesetz (Law on Stamp Duties,
Muckenschnabel           against      the        Unabhängiger            hereinafter the GebG', in the version published in
Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg, Additional Party:                  BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) 818/1993), which
       Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr                       provides that, where a loan granted by a lender who
                                                                         neither resides in Austria nor maintains his habitual
                       (Case C-438/97)
                                                                         abode, his head office or his seat there is not recorded
                         (98/C 72/12)                                    in an instrument giving rise to liability to pay stamp
                                                                         duty, the books and records which are maintained by
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   the debtor in accordance with the national rules on
European        Communities        by     order      of    the           taxes and duties and in which the loan is recorded are
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court), Austria, of               to be deemed to constitute the relevant document?
10 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
29 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the appeals            2. Does the taxation of loans (in so far as they result in a
brought by Holger Warnecke, Dirk Schultz, Rudolf                         flow of capital from one Member State to another)
Weinzierl, Johann Schachtner, Konrad Sonnleitner and                     under the first subparagraph of Paragraph 33 TP 8
Ulrich Muckenschnabel against the Unabhängiger                           GebG constitute arbitrary discrimination or a
Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg (Independent                        concealed restriction on the free movement of capital
Administrative Board for the Land of Salzburg),                          and payments within the meaning of Article 73b of
Additional Party: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und                    the Treaty?
Verkehr (Federal Minister for Science and Transport) on
the following question:
                                                                     (1) OJ L 178, 8.7.1988, p. 5.
Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable        Action brought on 23 December 1997 by the Kingdom of
abattoir in that State, and may be transported for                    Spain against Commission of the European Communities
slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are                                         (Case C-443/97)
observed and a total journey time of six hours and a                                          (98/C 72/14)
distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                     the European Communities on 23 December 1997 by the
                                                                     Kingdom of Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de
                                                                     Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 Boulevard
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Austrian                 E. Servais.
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of
18 December 1997 in the case of Sandoz GesmbH v.
Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          Burgenland
                       (Case C-439/97)                               1. annul the Commission Guidelines of 15 October 1997
                         (98/C 72/13)                                    relating to the net financial adjustments pursuant to
                                                                         Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1); and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by order of the Austrian                    2. order the defendant institution to pay the costs.