CELEX: C1999/188/48
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-152/99: Action brought on 23 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

3.7.1999                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 188/21
3. If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is the free              Action brought on 23 April 1999 by the Commission of
     movement of capital under Article 73b(l) of the EC Treaty                     the European Communities against Ireland
     ancillary to the other freedoms under the EC Treaty (e.g.
     freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services),
     so that the acquisition of land in a State of which an EU                                      (Case C-151/99)
     citizen is not a national which cannot be based on other
     freedoms under the EC Treaty also cannot be carried out                                        (1999/C 188/47)
     in reliance on the free movement of capital?
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
(1) OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26.                                                 Justice of the European Communities on 23 April 1999 by the
(2) OJ 1988 L 178, p. 5.                                                  Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                          Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                          Cruz, member of the legal Service of the Commission, Centre
                                                                          Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1) declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations or
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt,                     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
by order of that court of 26 March 1999, in the case of                       Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning
the State against Stockholm Aktiebolag and Stockholm                          the licensing of railway undertakings (1), or by failing to
                     Lindöpark against the State                              adopt the measures necessary to comply with it, Ireland
                                                                              has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
                           (Case C-150/99)
                                                                          2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
                           (1999/C 188/46)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities, by order of the Svea Hovrätt of
23 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the                Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall be
State against Stockholm Aktiebolag and Stockholm Lindöpark                binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
against the State on the following questions:                             State, carries by implication an obligation on the Member
                                                                          States to observe the period for compliance laid down in the
1. Do Articles 13A(l)(m) and 13B(b) (1) of the Sixth VAT                  directive. That period expired on 27 June 1997 without Ireland
     Directive preclude national provisions providing for a               having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the
     general exemption from VAT for the supply of sports                  directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
     facilities, as laid down in the second paragraph of Article 2
     of Chapter 3 of the Mervärdesskattelagen (1994:200), in
     the version in force before 1 January 1997?                          (1) OJ L 143, 27.06.95, p. 70.
2. Does Article 13, in combination with Articles 2, 6 and 17
     of the Sixth VAT Directive, confer on individuals rights on
     which they can rely as against Member States before a
     national court?
3. In the event that the first two questions are answered in
     the affirmative:
                                                                          Action brought on 23 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                                   the European Communities against Ireland
     Does the implementation and application of the exemption
     provided for in the second paragraph of Article 2 of
     Chapter 3 of the Mervärdesskattelagen (1994:200) entail                                        (Case C-152/99)
     such a serious (clear) infringement of Community law that
     it can render a Member State liable in damages?
                                                                                                    (1999/C 188/48)
(1) Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the            An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to            Justice of the European Communities on 23 April 1999 by the
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform            Commission of the European Communities, represented by
    basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
                                                                          Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                          Cruz, member of the legal Service of the Commission, Centre
                                                                          Wagner, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 188/22                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3.7.1999
The Applicant claims that the Court should                                   Action brought on 30 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                               the European Communities against the Italian Republic
1) declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations or
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning                                             (Case C-159/99)
     the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the
     charging of infrastructure fees (1), or by failing to adopt the
     measures necessary to comply with it, Ireland has failed to                                      (1999/C 188/50)
     fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
2) order Ireland to pay the costs.                                           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April
                                                                             1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by Paolo Stancanelli of its Legal Service, acting as
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                             of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall be
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
State, carries by implication an obligation on the Member                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
States to observe the period for compliance laid down in the
directive. That period expired on 27 June 1997 without Ireland               — Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the                       obligations under Community Law
directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
                                                                                  •   by laying down rules permitting the capture and
(1) OJ L 143, 27.06.95, p. 75.                                                        keeping of three species (passer italiae, passer mon-
                                                                                      tanus and sturnus vulgaris), contrary to Articles 5 and
                                                                                      7 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) and Annex II
                                                                                      thereto, and by providing that those rules are to apply
                                                                                      by way of a general and permanent derogation, which
                                                                                      is contrary to Article 9 of that Directive and engenders
                                                                                      an unacceptable degree of legal uncertainty; and
                                                                                  •   by laying down rules concerning the conditions and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tribut-                            detailed rules for the application of the derogation from
ário de 1a Instância, Faro, by order of that court of                                the prohibitions laid down by Directive 79/409/EEC
11 March 1999, in the case of Corticeira Amorim-Algarve                               which do not fully comply with the requirements
                      Lda. and Fazenda Pública                                       under Article 9 thereof, in particular as regards the
                                                                                      reasons for derogation, listed in Article 9(1)(a) and (b);
                           (Case C-158/99)
                                                                             — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceed-
                           (1999/C 188/49)                                        ings.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunal Tributärio                  Pleas in law and main arguments
de 1a Instância, Faro, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Corticeira Amorim-Algarve Lda. v Fazenda Pública, on the
following question:
                                                                             The first infrinqement
Is Article 2 of the Schedule of Land Registry Fees, in requiring
to be added to the fixed fee under Article 1 thereof the variable            The Commission maintains that the rules laid down by
fee based on value provided for therein, contrary to Article 12              Articles 4(4) and 5(2) of Law No 157/92, which authorise the
of Directive 69/335, (1) in so far as it is prohibited, under the            capture and keeping of three protected species (passer italiae,
latter article, to levy a charge whose amount is calculated on               passer montanus and sturnus vulgaris) are manifestly contrary
the basis not of the cost of the individual service but of the               to Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 79/409 and Annex II thereto,
overall financing and investment costs of the body responsible               and that Article 3 of the DPCM (2) of 27 September 1997,
for providing the service in question?                                       according to which those rules may be justified under the
                                                                             derogation provided for in Article 9 of the Directive, does not
                                                                             remedy that infringement because the ensuing legal situation
(1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the            is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and the
    raising of capital (OJ English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412).       requirement that the Directive be clearly transposed into
                                                                             national law, and because the provision at issue introduces
                                                                             unacceptable arrangements for general and permanent dero-
                                                                             gation from the prohibitions laid down in the Directive.