Luxembourg, 30/11/2001 (Agence Europe) - In the De Coster case, the Court of Justice has ruled that the levying of a municipal tax only on satellite dishes is contrary to the freedom to supply services. A Court of Justice press release signals that "The tax regulation adopted by a Belgian municipality penalises programmes transmitted from other Member States and that barrier to trade cannot be justified by concern for the protection of the environment as argued by the municipality". A regulation adopted by the municipal council of Watermael-Boisfort provided for an additional municipal tax of BEF 5000 on satellite dishes for the years 1997 to 2001 inclusive. The tax regulation was abolished with effect from 1 January 1999 after the European Commission had questions its compliance with Community law. Mr De Coster disputed the levy of the tax for 1998 before the competent Belgian authority (the Collège juidictionnel de al Région de Brussels-Capitale), which asked the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the compatibility of the tax with Community law.
"The municipality relied on ground linked to the protection of the urban environment.. Mr De Coster complained that the tax was an obstacle to the free reception of television programmes from other Member States and created disparity between cable broadcasting companies and those that broadcast via satellite". The Court held that "although direct taxation does not fall within the scope of the Community, the Member States must nevertheless exercise their powers in a manner consistent with Community law and especially with the freedom to provide services." The broadcasting and transmission of television signals is covered by rules on the provision of services. However, "the freedom to provide services implies that any national rules which have the effect of impeding further the activities of operators established in another Member State or making the provision of services more difficult than the provision of services purely within one Member State must be abolished". The court found that the tax imposed a levy on the picking up of television programmes transmitted by satellite which did not apply to programmes transmitted by cable. Belgian channels enjoy unlimited access to cable, but the number of TV channels from other Member States that can be transmitted via cable is limited. The Court stated "that the tax in question therefore had the effect of dissuading the residents of that municipality from picking up programmes broadcast by satellite from other Member States. In the same way, satellite operators established in other Member States are at a disadvantage compared to cable distributors operating in Belgium". As for the need to protect the environment (relied on by the Belgian municipal authorities), the Court "stated that it could be achieved by other methods less restrictive of the freedom to provide services such as requirements concerning the size or position of the dishes".
In the Griesmar case, the Court ruled "that civil servants who are fathers and mothers must be treated equally when their retirement pensions are being calculated". "The exclusion of such men from entitlement to the service credits granted to retired civil servants who are mothers is, the Court holds, contrary to the principle of equal pay if those fathers can prove that they brought up their children". Joseph Griesmar, a French civil servant, received a retirement pension that did not include the service credit which female civil servants who are mothers receive to offset disadvantages that result from bringing up children. The question posed "made it necessary to determine whether the credit granted in respect of each child was linked to the career-related disadvantages incurred during maternity leave - which could not concern men - or whether it was intended to offset disadvantages that result from brining up a child, in which case male civil servants would… be entitled to claim it". The Court noted that the grant of this credit was in no way dependent on maternity leave; quite on the contrary, it was based on the longer period devoted to bringing up a child. The Court took the view that "the credit granted to civil servants who were mothers could not be authorised as being a measure designed to help women in their careers since, being granted at the date of their retirement, it did not provide a remedy for the problems which they might encounter in the course of their professional career". The Court concluded "that the career-related difficulties encountered by mothers could not be resolved by means of the service credit at issue in the present case" and a Court of Justice press release went on, "The Court also decided not to limit in time the effects of its judgement, thereby turning down the request of the French government, which has alluded to potential financial consequences".