You are on page 1of 1


1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 188/17

Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, (2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg. Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission of the European Communities claims that The Commission considers that Ireland’s legislation, by
the Court should: imposing excise duty on carriers in respect of every passenger
ticket on services from Ireland to other Member States (with
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and the exception of flights to Northern Ireland) and not upon
administrative measures necessary in order to comply flights within Ireland (and to Northern Ireland), is incompatable
with Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 with the principle of freedom to provide services as stated in
establishing the fundamental principles governing the Articles 59 and 62 of the Treaty and in the rules laid down in
investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents (1), Article 3(1) of Regulation 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.
obligations under that directive;
With regard to Ireland’s contention that there is no infringe-
(2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. ment of Regulation 2408/92 because the excise duty is
non-discriminatory on grounds of nationality, the Commission
is of the view that the principles governing the freedom to
Pleas in law and main arguments provide services go beyond the mere prohibition of any
discrimination on grounds of nationality. Even if national
measures restricting that freedom apply without distinction to
Article 12 of the abovementioned directive provides that the national providers of services and to those of other Member
Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations States, they are still unacceptable if they are not warranted by
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the mandatory requirements in the public interest, or if the
directive not later than 21 November 1996, and that they are same result can be obtained by less restrictive rules (the
to inform the Commission thereof. proportionality principle).

Although the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg indicated, in its (1) OJ L 240, 24.08.1992, p. 8.
response to the formal notice and to the reasoned opinion,
that the necessary measures were in the course of preparation,
the Commission has not to date received any information
regarding the adoption of those measures.

(1) OJ L 319 of 12.12.1994, p. 14.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep te Gent by judgment of that court of 13 April
1999 in the case of NV Algemene Maatschappij van
Verzekeringen en Grondkrediet, now known as NV
Algemene Maatschappij voor Investering en Dienstverl-
ening (AMID), against the Belgian State

Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of (Case C-141/99)

the European Communities against Ireland
(1999/C 188/40)
(Case C-139/99)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1999/C 188/39) European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep te
Gent (Ghent Court of Appeal) of 13 April 1999, received at
the Court Registry on 21 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of in the case of NV Algemene Maatschappij van Verzekeringen
Justice of the European Communities on 19 April 1999 by the en Grondkrediet, now known as NV Algemene Maatschappij
Commission of the European Communities, represented by voor Investering en Dienstverlening (AMID), against the
Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address Belgian State, on the following question:
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre Does Article 52 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing
Wagner. the European Community preclude the application of national
legislation of a Member State under which, for the purposes of
The Applicant claims that the Court should: assessment to corporation tax, a business loss incurred in that
Member State during an earlier taxable period by a company
(1) declare that by providing in Section 65 of the Finance Act established in that State can be offset against the profits made
1982 (as amended) that flights from Ireland to other by that company during a later taxable period only to the
Member States (with the exception of Northern Ireland) extent to which that loss cannot be attributed to the profit
are subject to a higher tax rate than flights within Ireland, made by a permanent establishment of that company in
Ireland has failed to comply with Article 3(1) of Council another Member State during that earlier taxable period, with
Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1); the result that the loss thus attributed cannot be offset, in