Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 July 2001 in Case C-102/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Welthgrove BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Article 4 of the Sixth VAT Directive — Economic activity — Involvement of a holding company in the management of its subsidiaries)
Date: 2001-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, financial management, holding company, interpretation of the law, parent company, subsidiary

13.10.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 289/7

Saccarifera Italiana Agroindistriale SpA (ISI), established in
Padua, Italy, Sadani Zuccerifici, a division of SECI — Società
Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, established in Bologna,
Italy, Sadam Castigliognese SpA, established in Bologna, Sadam
Abruzzo SpA, established in Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise
SpA, established in Termoli, Italy, Società Fondiaria Industriale
Romagnola SpA (SFIR), established in Cesena, Italy, represent-
ed by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and I. Vigliotti, avvocato, —
appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (First Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case
T-158/95 Eridania and Others v Council [1999] ECR II-2219,
seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to the
proceedings being, Council of the European Union (Agents:
I. Dı´ez Parra and J.P. Hix), Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) and Ponteco
Zuccheri SpA, established in Pontelagoscuro, Italy — the Court
(Second Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President of the
Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 28 June 2001, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Eridania SpA, Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindis-
triale SpA (ISI), Sadam Zuccerifici, a division of SECI
Industriali SpA, Sadam
— Società Esercizi Commerciali
Castigliognese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del
Molise SpA and Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA
(SFIR) jointly to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 352, 4.12.1999.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 10 July 2001

ruling in connection with an application for registration in the
commercial register made by HSB-Wohnbau GmbH, on the
interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of
the
Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n and
S. von Bahr,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 10 July
2001, in which it has ruled:

The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no
jurisdiction to answer the questions put by the Amtsgericht Heidelberg
in its order of 3 March 2000.

(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 12 July 2001

in Case C-102/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Welthgrove BV v
Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Article 4 of the
Sixth VAT Directive — Economic activity — Involvement of
a holding company in the management of its subsidiaries)

(2001/C 289/13)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

in Case C-86/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Amtsgericht Heidelberg): HSB-Wohnbau GmbH (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Entry in the commer-
cial register of the transfer of a company’s registered office
— Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2001/C 289/12)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-86/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Amtsgericht Heidelberg (Germany), for a preliminary

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-102/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the
Netherlands)
(Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Welthgrove
BV and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — on the interpretation
of Article 4, Article 11A(1)(a) and Article 13B(d)(5) of 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) — the Court
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevo´ n (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given an
order on 12 July 2001, the operative part of which is as
follows:

C 289/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.10.2001

Involvement of a holding company in the management of
its
subsidiaries must be regarded as an economic activity within the
meaning of Article 4(2) of 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, only in so far as it entails carrying
out transactions which are subject to VAT by virtue of Article 2 of
that directive.

(1) OJ 163 of 10.6.2000.

Appeal brought on 14 May 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
ed on 6 March 2001 by the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case
T-331/94 IPK-München GmbH v Commission of the
European Communities

(Case C-200/01 P)

(2001/C 289/15)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tribu-
ta´rio de Primeira Instancia do Porto, 2.o Juı´zo —
1.a Secça˜o, by decision of that court of 7 November 2000
in the case of Caves Costa Verde, L.da against Fazenda
Pu´ blica

(Case C-154/01)

(2001/C 289/14)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of the Tribunal Tributario
de 1.a Instância do Porto 2.o Juı´zo — 1.a Secça˜o (Tax Court of
First Instance, Oporto, Second Division, First Chamber) of
7 November 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
on 9 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caves
Costa Verde, L.da against Fazenda Pu´ blica on the following
question:

Are the charges assessed under Decree-laws No 26317, of
30 January 1936, No 40037, of 18 January 1955 and No 321-
A/86, of 25 September 1986 compatible with the Sixth
Directive (1), having regard to the fact that according to the
appellant, the charges should be assessed on the basis of
turnover whereas the Instituto da Vinha e do Vinho argues
that they constitute a marketing charge on the sales of wine in
bulk?

In the absence of sufficient information in the order for
reference, the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber), by order of
11 July 2001, declared the reference for a preliminary ruling
manifestly inadmissible.

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).

An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 14 May 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Jürgen Grun-
wald, Legal Adviser, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Gérard
Berscheid, Legal Adviser to the Commission of the European
Communities, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, against the judgment
delivered on 6 March 2001 by the Court of First Instance of
in Case
the European Communities
T-331/94 IPK-München GmbH v Commission of the European
Communities (1).

(Third Chamber)

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
6 March 2001 in Case T-331/94 and dismiss the action;

2.

in the alternative:

annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance cited in
paragraph (1) and refer the case back to the Court of First
Instance;

3.

order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Incomplete legal assessment of the basis of the contested
decision. Infringement of the prohibition of unjust enrich-
ment.

— Incorrect

legal assessment of

the collusion between
Mr Tzoanos, the Greek undertaking 01-Pliroforiki and
the respondent.

— Incorrect legal assessment of the Commission’s proposal
to include the Studienkreis undertaking in the project.

— Failure to examine the legal consequences of a breach of
bona fides. As a legal consequence of its assessment the
Court of First Instance ought not to have set aside the
contested decision in its entirety but only in so far as the
Commission had thereby refused to participate financially
in the expenditure which the respondent had lawfully
incurred with regard to the sixth and seventh phases of
the project but which it had been unable to complete for
lack of time.