# C_2005045EN.01001501.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/15 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by decision of that court of 26 November 2004 in the case of Heintz van Landewyck SARL against Staatssecretaris van Financiën)

(Case C-494/04)

(2005/C 45/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 26 November 2004 received at the Court Registry on1 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Heintz van Landewyck SARL against Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following questions:

| 1. | Must the Excise Duty Directive( 1 ) be interpreted as requiring the Member States to enact a statutory provision under which they must reimburse or offset amounts by way of excise duty due or paid at the time excise labels are requested in a case in which the requesting party (the holder of an authorisation to operate a tax warehouse) has not used, nor will be able to use, labels which disappeared before they were affixed to products subject to excise duty, and third parties cannot have made and will not be able to make lawful use of the labels even though it cannot be ruled out that they have used, or will use, the labels by affixing them to tobacco products which have been put on the market in an irregular manner? |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 2 | (a)
Must the Sixth Directive,( 2 ) and in particular Article 27(1) and (5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the Netherlands Government notified the Commission at a date later than that laid down in Article 27(5) of the Sixth Directive, as amended by the Ninth Directive, that it wished to maintain the special procedure for charging tax on tobacco products means that if an individual invokes the failure to observe the time-limit, after the date when notification was in fact made, this special procedure for charging tax must be disapplied also after the making of the notification? (b)
If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative, must the Sixth Directive, and in particular Article 27(1) and (5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the special procedure for charging tax on tobacco products laid down in Article 28 of the Wet op de Omzetbelasting must be disapplied on the grounds that it is incompatible with the conditions laid down by the abovementioned provisions of the directive? (c)
If the answer to Question 2(b) is in the negative, must the Sixth Directive, and in particular Article 27(1) and (5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that failure to reimburse turnover tax in circumstances such as those referred to in Question 1 is contrary thereto? | (a) | Must the Sixth Directive,( 2 ) and in particular Article 27(1) and (5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the Netherlands Government notified the Commission at a date later than that laid down in Article 27(5) of the Sixth Directive, as amended by the Ninth Directive, that it wished to maintain the special procedure for charging tax on tobacco products means that if an individual invokes the failure to observe the time-limit, after the date when notification was in fact made, this special procedure for charging tax must be disapplied also after the making of the notification? | (b) | If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative, must the Sixth Directive, and in particular Article 27(1) and (5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the special procedure for charging tax on tobacco products laid down in Article 28 of the Wet op de Omzetbelasting must be disapplied on the grounds that it is incompatible with the conditions laid down by the abovementioned provisions of the directive? | (c) | If the answer to Question 2(b) is in the negative, must the Sixth Directive, and in particular Article 27(1) and (5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that failure to reimburse turnover tax in circumstances such as those referred to in Question 1 is contrary thereto? |
| --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (a) | Must the Sixth Directive,( 2 ) and in particular Article 27(1) and (5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the Netherlands Government notified the Commission at a date later than that laid down in Article 27(5) of the Sixth Directive, as amended by the Ninth Directive, that it wished to maintain the special procedure for charging tax on tobacco products means that if an individual invokes the failure to observe the time-limit, after the date when notification was in fact made, this special procedure for charging tax must be disapplied also after the making of the notification? | | | | | | |
| (b) | If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative, must the Sixth Directive, and in particular Article 27(1) and (5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the special procedure for charging tax on tobacco products laid down in Article 28 of the Wet op de Omzetbelasting must be disapplied on the grounds that it is incompatible with the conditions laid down by the abovementioned provisions of the directive? | | | | | | |
| (c) | If the answer to Question 2(b) is in the negative, must the Sixth Directive, and in particular Article 27(1) and (5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that failure to reimburse turnover tax in circumstances such as those referred to in Question 1 is contrary thereto? | | | | | | |

---

( 1 )  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

( 2 )  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

---