You are on page 1of 1

C 171/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 9.7.

2005

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all bolaget AB. Lighter wines in the middle price range are
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to regarded as being interchangeable with strong beer.
comply with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000
implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons
irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, the Republic of Austria has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. Beer is subject to an alcohol tax which is on average and as a
percentage is significantly lower than the equivalent tax on
wine. No ground has been put forward which justifies that
difference in that selective purchase tax. The difference in the
2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
tax affects the price of the respective products. The difference
in price is increased by the application of VAT at the rate of
25 % to the products.
(1) OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.

The effect of the tax on the price of the respective products is


likely to distort competition between goods and the internal
selective purchase taxes are such as to strengthen domestic
patterns of consumption, reduce potential consumption of
wine and thus they are likely to afford indirect protection to
beer to the detriment of wine.
Action brought on 14 April 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Sweden

(Case C-167/05)

Action brought on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of


(2005/C 171/11)
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Language of the case: Swedish)

(Case C-180/05)

An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before


the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 April (2005/C 171/12)
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by L. Ström van Lier and K. Gross, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.
(Language of the case: French)
The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by applying internal taxes by which beer


mainly produced in Sweden is protected indirectly to
against wine mainly imported from other Member States, An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
under the second paragraph of Article 90 EC; nities on 22 April 2005 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Wouter Wils, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
2. order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments


1. declare that, by failing to apply the provisions on public
lending right provided for in Council Directive 92/100/EEC
of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and
Alcoholic beverages are sold to the individual consumer in on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellec-
Sweden via a State-owned retail trade monopoly, Systembolaget tual property (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
AB. Strong beer, in other words beer containing more than to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of the direc-
3.5 % alcohol by volume, and wines are sold through System- tive;