Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2001 in Case C-184/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de premiere instance de Charleroi): Office des produits wallons ASBL v Belgian State (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable amount — Subsidies directly linked to the price)
Date: 2002-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, VAT, approximation of laws, interpretation of the law, production aid

19.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 17/7

Article 87 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann
(Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in
which it has ruled:

1. Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87
EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that, because it is charged
only on direct sales of medicines by pharmaceutical laboratories,
a measure such as the tax introduced by Article 12 of Law
No 97-1164 of 19 December 1997 on social security funding
for 1998 amounts to State aid to wholesale distributors only
to the extent that the advantage in not being assessed to the tax
on direct sales of medicines exceeds the additional costs that
they bear in discharging the public service obligations imposed
on them by national law.

2. Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(2) EC) is to be
interpreted as meaning that it does not cover a tax advantage
enjoyed by undertakings entrusted with the operation of a public
service such as those concerned in the main proceedings in so
far as that advantage exceeds the additional costs of performing
the public service.

3. Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
EC) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a
situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where
there is no connection with the provision of services.

(1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 22 November 2001

in Case C-184/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de premiere instance de Charleroi): Office
des produits wallons ASBL v Belgian State (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable
amount — Subsidies directly linked to the price)

(2002/C 17/10)

(Language of the case: French)

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

(Belgium), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Office des produits wallons ASBL
and Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 11A(1)(a)
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 (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rappor-
teur), acting for the President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in
which it has ruled:

For the purposes of Article 11A(1)(a) 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 ‘subsidies directly linked
to the price’ must be interpreted as covering only subsidies which
constitute the whole or part of the consideration for a supply of goods
or services and which are paid by a third party to the seller or supplier.
It is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the facts
before it, whether or not the subsidy constitutes such consideration.

(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 13 September 2001

in Case C-467/00 P: Staff Committee of the European
Central Bank and Others v European Central Bank (1)

(Appeal — Application for annulment of an administrative
circular concerning Internet usage within the European
Central Bank — Application for directions to be issued to
the European Central Bank — Inadmissibility — Appeal in
part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

(2002/C 17/11)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-184/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Tribunal de première instance de Charleroi

In Case C-467/00 P: Staff Committee of the European Central
Bank, established in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes
Priesemann, member of staff of the European Central Bank,