6.11.2004

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria, by decision of that court of 12 August 2004 in the case of (1) Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich GmbH, (2) Planai-Hochwurzen-Bahnen GmbH, (3) Gerlitzen-Kanzelbahn-Touristik Gesellschaft mbH & CO KG, against (1) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol, (2) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark, and (3) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten

(Case C-368/04)

(2004/C 273/26)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court) (Austria) of 12 August 2004, received at the Court Registry on 24 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of (1) Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich GmbH, (2) Planai-Hochwurzen-Bahnen GmbH, and (3) Gerlitzen-Kanzelbahn-Touristik Gesellschaft mbH & CO KG, against (1) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol, (2) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark and (3) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten, on the following questions:

Does the prohibition on putting measures into effect under Article 88(3) EC preclude the application of a national legal provision which excludes businesses whose activity is not shown to consist primarily in the manufacture of goods from energy tax rebates and which must therefore be classified as aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC, but which was not notified to the Commission prior to the national entry into force of the rules, even where the Commission has found the measure to be compatible with the common market under Article 87(3) EC for a period in the past and the application for reimbursement relates to taxes payable for that period?

2.	If so, in such a case does the prohibition on putting measures into effect require a rebate even in cases where the applications were made by service businesses after the adoption of the Commission's decision for assessment periods prior to that date?