Case C-308/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court of 24 July 2001, in the case of 1) Gil Insurance Ltd, 2) UK Consumer Electronics Ltd, 3) Consumer Electronics Insurance Company Ltd, 4) Direct Vision Rentals Ltd, 5) Homecare Insurance Ltd, 6) Pinnacle Insurance plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Date: 2001-10-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, approximation of laws, competition law, insurance, interpretation of the law, tax exemption

C 303/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.10.2001

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that
court of 24 July 2001, in the case of 1) Gil Insurance Ltd,
2) UK Consumer Electronics Ltd, 3) Consumer Electronics
Insurance Company Ltd, 4) Direct Vision Rentals Ltd,
5) Homecare Insurance Ltd, 6) Pinnacle Insurance plc
against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

(Case C-308/01)

(2001/C 303/12)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties
Tribunals of 24 July 2001, which was received at the Court
Registry on 6 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of 1) Gil Insurance Ltd, 2) UK Consumer Electronics Ltd,
3) Consumer Electronics Insurance Company Ltd, 4) Direct
Vision Rentals Ltd, 5) Homecare Insurance Ltd, 6) Pinnacle
Insurance plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise,
on the following questions:

3.

4.

5.

Is Article 87(1) EC to be interpreted so that an aid is to
be held to affect trade between Member States only if it
has, or is capable of having, an appreciable effect on trade
between Member States? If so, what are the criteria for
determining whether or not a measure has such an effect?

Is Article 87(1) EC to be interpreted so that an aid is to
be held to affect trade between Member States if as a
result of that aid (1) traders in one Member State reduce
the volumes of the goods they import from other Member
States; or (2) a trader who rents domestic appliances to
customers in one Member State has a number of its rental
contracts discontinued and disposes of those appliances
in another Member State; or (3) insurance companies in
one Member State, which provide insurance connected
with the sales of domestic appliances, are placed at a
competitive disadvantage with companies which sell
direct
insurance some of which are subsidiaries of
companies in other Member States?

If, in the light of the answers to Questions 3 and 4, the
higher rate of insurance premium tax constitutes a state
aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, is Article 88
EC to be interpreted so that, where the Commission is
not informed of any plans to grant such aid, the legislative
measures introducing the aid should be dis-applied and
any tax paid under those measures should be repaid?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

1.

2.

of

added

tax:
uniform basis
to be interpreted so that

Is Article 27 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes — common system of
assessment
value
(77/388/EEC) (1)
the prior
authorisation of the Council was required before the
introduction of a higher rate of tax on insurance pre-
miums, which tax was designed to nullify the exemption
for insurance services in Article 13 of the Directive; which
was at a rate identical to the standard rate of value added
tax; which was administered in the same way as value
added tax; which was intended with value added tax to
form part of an inseparable whole; and where there was
no tax evasion or tax avoidance?

of

tax:

added

uniform basis

Is Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes — common system of
assessment
value
(77/388/EEC) to be interpreted so as to prevent a Member
State from introducing a tax on insurance premiums
which is calculated by reference to the services supplied;
which is proportional to the price of the services supplied;
which is charged at the final stage of sale to the consumer;
which is passed on to the final consumer in a manner
characteristic of value added tax so that the burden of tax
rests on the final consumer; which applies to the whole
territory of the United kingdom; but which does not
apply generally to all transactions relating to goods and
services?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Wien by order of that court of 25 July
2001 in the case of Dr Eva Glawischnig against Bundes-
kanzler

(Case C-316/01)

(2001/C 303/13)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Wien (Independent Administrative Chamber, Vien-
na) of 25 July 2001, received at the Court Registry on
13 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Eva
Glawischnig v Bundeskanzler on the following questions:

1.

Can the name of the manufacturer of foodstuffs and their
product description, in respect of which a complaint has
been made in the context of the monitoring by the