You are on page 1of 2

C 227/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 11.8.

2001

(2) Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with tungssenat Salzburg of 18 June 2001, received at the Court
Community law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on Registry on 20 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
the sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the appeal concerning Ewald Feichtinger, the Salzburg District
sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated Commission and the land transfer agent of the Land of
according to the legal rate in force at the date on which Salzburg (Case C-237/01), and Dr Dieter Cerha, the Mayor of
that Law entered into force (2,5 % per annum) and not Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land of Salzburg
according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with (Case C-238/01) on the following question:
respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as
subsequently amended?
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36
(1) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412. and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Politierechtbank fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
Te Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) by order the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
of that court of 11 June 2001 in the case of Openbaar case?
Ministerie against Hans Van Lent

(Case C-232/01)

(2001/C 227/24)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the


European Communities by order of the Politierechtbank Te
Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) of 11 June 2001 Action brought on 25 June 2001 by the Commission
received at the Court Registry an 18 June 2001, for a of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
preliminary ruling in the case of Openbaar Ministerie against Sweden
Hans Van Lent on the following question:
(Case C-247/01)
Do Community rules, in particular Article 39 EC (ex Article 48
of the EC Treaty) and Article 10 EC (ex Article 5 of the EC
Treaty), preclude a Member State from requiring registration (2001/C 227/26)
of a vehicle belonging (1) to a leasing company established in
a neighbouring Member State, which is leased by an employer
and used by an employee (2) who is resident in the first- An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
mentioned Member State, at a distance of some 200 km from the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 June
his place of employment, in a situation where the employee in 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
question resides in the first-mentioned Member State (3) during represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent, with an address
the week and uses the vehicle in order to perform his contract for service in Luxembourg.
of employment and also during his free time, including
weekends and holiday periods? The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its


obligations both under the first sentence of Article 4(4)
of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on
the conservation of wild birds, most recently amended by
Directive 97/49/EC (2), which was replaced by Article 6(3)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger and (4) of Council Directive (3) 92/43/EEC of 21 May
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 18 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
June 2001 in the appeal concerning Ewald Feichtinger, fauna and flora, and under Articles 6(3) and 9(2) of
Dr Dieter Cerha, the Salzburg District Commission, the Directive 79/409/EEC,
Mayor of Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land
of Salzburg 2. order the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.

(Cases C-237/01 and C-238/01)


Pleas in law and main arguments
(2001/C 227/25)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the In accordance with the Treaty of Accession Sweden undertook
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal- to fulfil the requirements of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
11.8.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 227/15

2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (the ‘birds Action brought on 3 July 2001 by Commission of the
directive’) by 1 January 1995. As of that date the obligations European Communities against French Republic
under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the birds directive in
respect of all areas classified pursuant to Article 4(1) and (2) of (Case C-259/01)
the birds directive were replaced by the obligations in
Article 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May (2001/C 227/27)
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora (‘habitats directive’) as laid down in Article 7 of that An action against the French Republic was brought before the
directive. Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 July 2001
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
As regards the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the birds by Roland Tricot acting as Agent, with an address for service
directive with reference to Article 6(3) and (4) of the habitats in Luxembourg.
directive the Swedish government considered that a number The applicant claims that the Court should:
of amendments to its legislation were required to implement
the directive. The Commission claims that the necessary (a) Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
measures were not taken within the period of two months within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
prescribed in the reasoned opinion. administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules
As regards the consultation obligation under Article 6(3) of for the internal market in natural gas (1), the French
the birds directive the Commission claims that the necessary Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
measures were not taken within the period of two months directive and, in particular, Article 29;
prescribed in the reasoned opinion.
(b) Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Finally, as regards the deficiencies in the correct implemen-
tation of Article 9 of the birds directive, the legal provisions Pleas in law and main arguments
which Sweden claims incorporate Article 9, that is to say
Paragraph 23a of the Jaktförordningen (hunting regulation), Under the third paragraph of Article 249 and the first
which incorporates Article 9(1)(a), Paragraph 9 of the Jaktlagen paragraph of Article 10 of the EC Treaty France was required
(hunting law), which incorporates Article 9(1)(c) and Para- to adopt the measures necessary to transpose Directive
graph 31 of the Jaktförordningen, which incorporates 98/30/EC at the latest by 10 August 2000, the date laid down
Article 9(1)(b), do not contain the specific information required in Article 29 thereof.
under Article 9(2) of the birds directive. The further dero-
gations in the Swedish Jaktförordningen (Paragraphs 14, 15, (1) OJ 1998 L 204, p. 1.
20, 21, 27 and 29), in Paragraph 12 of the Artskyddförordn-
ingen (species protection regulation) (SFS 1998:1790) and in
Paragraph 5 of the protective provisions of the Naturvårdverket
(Swedish environment protection board) (NFS 1997:5) do not
contain the information required under Article 9(2) of the
birds directive. Nor does Paragraph 9b of the Jaktförordningen Removal from the register of Case C-216/00 (1)
specify the conditions of risk as prescribed by the third indent
of Article 9(2). (2001/C 227/28)

By order of 28 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice


(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 223, 13.8.1997, p. 9. of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. the register of Case C-216/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.

(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.