Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 October 2001 in Case C-409/98 [reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)]: Commissioners of Customs & Excise v Mirror Group plc (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for the leasing or letting of immovable property — Meaning — Undertaking to become a tenant)
Date: 2001-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, lease, property leasing, provision of services, real property, tax exemption

24.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 9 October 2001

in Case C-377/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands v European
Parliament and Council of the European Union (1)

(Annulment — Directive 98/44/EC — Legal protection of
biotechnological inventions — Legal basis — Article 100a
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 95 EC),
Article 235 of the EC Treaty (now Article 308 EC) or
Articles 130 and 130f of the EC Treaty (now Articles 157
EC and 163 EC) — Subsidiarity — Legal certainty —
Obligations of Member States under international law —
Fundamental rights — Human dignity — Principle of
collegiality for draft legislation of the Commission)

(2001/C 331/01)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October 2001, in which
it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear the costs;

3. Orders the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Norway and the

Commission each to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 9 October 2001

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

In Case C-377/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
M.A. Fierstra and I. van der Steen) supported by Italian
Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by P.G. Ferri), and by
Kingdom of Norway (Agent: H.W. Longva) v European
Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo and E. Vandenbosch) and Council
of the European Union (Agents: R. Gosalbo Bono, G. Houttuin
and A. Lo Monaco) supported by Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: K. Banks and P. van Nuffel) — appli-
cation for annulment of Directive 98/44/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal
protection of biotechnological inventions (OJ 1998 L 213,
p. 13) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias,
President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), L. Sevo´ n, M. Wathelet,
V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the

in Case C-409/98 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
Bench Division (Divisional Court)]: Commissioners of
Customs & Excise v Mirror Group plc (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for the leasing or letting
of immovable property — Meaning — Undertaking to
become a tenant)

(2001/C 331/02)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-409/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Div-
isional Court) (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Com-
missioners of Customs & Excise and Mirror Group plc — on
the interpretation of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council
Directive of 17 May 1977 (77/388/EEC) on the harmonisation

C 331/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.11.2001

of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric
(Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
9 October 2001, in which it has ruled:

1. A person who does not initially have any interest in the
immovable property and who enters into an agreement for lease
of that immovable property with a landlord and/or accepts the
grant of a lease of the property in return for a sum of money
paid by the landlord does not make a supply of services
falling within Article 13B(b) of the 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.

2. A person who does not initially have any interest in the
immovable property and who enters into an option agreement
such as the one before the national court in relation to leases of
that immovable property in return for a sum of money paid by
the landlord, on terms that the money will remain in a special
account as
the option
agreement, and who subsequently exercises the options under
the option agreement and accepts the grant of leases of the
immovable property in return for the release of the money in its
special account, at no time makes a supply of services falling
within Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC.

its obligations under

security for

(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 9 October 2001

in Joined Cases C-80/99 to C-82/99 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht, Frank-
furt am Main): Ernst-Otto Flemmer (C-80/99), Renate
Christoffel (C-81/99) v Council of the European Union
and Commission of the European Communities and
Marike Leitensdorfer (C-82/99) v Bundesanstalt für Land-
wirtschaft und Ernährung (1)

(Non-contractual liability — Milk producers — Non-market-
ing undertaking — Exclusion from milk quota scheme —
Compensation — Substitution — Flat-rate compensation by
contract — Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 — Relevant
jurisdiction — Applicable law)

(2001/C 331/03)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Joined Cases C-80/99 to C-82/99: reference to the Court
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from

the Verwaltungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Ernst-Otto Flemmer (C-80/99), Renate Christoffel (C-81/99)
and Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities represented by: Bundesanstalt
für
Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, and between Marike Leit-
ensdorfer (C-82/99) and Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und
Ernährung — on the interpretation of the second paragraph
of Article 215 and Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now the
second paragraph of Article 288 EC and Article 235 EC) and
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993
providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers
of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from carrying
on their trade (OJ 1993 L 196, p. 6) — the Court, composed
of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken,
N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevo´ n, M. Wathe-
let, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 9 October 2001, in which it has ruled:

1.

2.

3.

The provisions of the second paragraph of Article 215 and
Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of
Article 288 EC and Article 235 EC) read in conjunction must
be interpreted as meaning that the Court of Justice does not
have jurisdiction to rule in disputes arising from a contract for
compensation concluded in the name and on behalf of the
Council and the Commission by the competent national
authority,
in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of
compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products
temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade.

In the absence of any indication in Regulation No 2187/93,
the contracts for compensation concluded pursuant to that
Regulation are governed by the rules of national law, provided
that their application does not prejudice the scope and effective-
ness of Community law.

Community law does not preclude the application of
the
principle of legitimate expectations provided for by the national
legal order of the Member State concerned for the purposes of
assessing the scope of contracts concluded by national authorities
in the name and on behalf of the Council and Commission,
provided that the Community interest is also taken into account.

(1) OJ C 121, 1.5.1999.