Case C-487/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by decision of 14 December 2001 in the case of Gemeente Leusden and Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2002-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, property leasing, tax exemption, tax harmonisation

16.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 44/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello
di Genova by order of that court of 15 November 2001
in the case of Ministero delle Finanze and Eurico Italia
SpA

Article 47(2) of that regulation) to be granted further
time and may it fix that duration on the basis of the time
actually taken to obtain and forward the prescribed
documentation?

(1) OJ L 351, 14.12.1987, p. 1.

(Case C-467/01)

(2002/C 44/12)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Corte di Appello di
Genova (Genoa Court of Appeal) by order of 15 November
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 6 December
2001, on the following questions:

1. On the basis of the combined provisions of Articles 47(4)
and 48 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1), must it be
concluded that (a) the further time which may be granted
to an exporter may not in any circumstances exceed the
maximum duration of 18 months; or (b) that, conversely,
the reduction of 15 % applies only where the ordinary
time-limit and any extension thereof granted to the
exporter is exceeded by more than six months?

If the interpretation given in question 1(b) above is
correct, are there, on the basis of the two abovementioned
articles, maximum time-limits — in the light of the
various forms, including those indicated in the grounds
of this order, which they may take from the Community
law point of view — within which the extensions of time
may be granted?

If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct,
what are those maximum time-limits and what extensions
of time are available under the two abovementioned
articles?

If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct,
may a private individual, on the basis of
the two
abovementioned articles, claim a legally protected right
to the setting of a particular duration (regarded as
commensurate with the difficulties of obtaining the
prescribed documentation) for the extension of time?

2.

3.

4.

5.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
e Penale di Trento (Civil and Criminal Court, Trento) by
order of 6 December 2001 in the case of Francesca Caprini
v Conservatore C.C.I.A.A.

(Case C-485/01)

(2002/C 44/13)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 6 December 2001 by the
Tribunale Civile e Penale di Trento, which was received at the
Court Registry on 14 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Francesca Caprini v Conservatore C.C.I.A.A. on
the following questions:

Does Council Directive 86/653/EEC (1) of 18 December 1986
on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating
to self-employed commercial agents preclude a rule of national
law which makes the enrolment of a commercial agent in the
register of undertakings conditional on that agent’s name
having been entered in an appropriate register?

(1) OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by decision of 14 December 2001 in the case
of Gemeente Leusden and Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-487/01)

(2002/C 44/14)

If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct, may
the national court, on the basis of the two abovemen-
tioned articles — if the administrative authority fails to
grant further time — recognise the exporter’s right (if he
has acted diligently to obtain the documents and forward
them within the period of 12 months laid down in

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of 14 December 2001 by
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of
the
Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on
17 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Gemeente Leusden and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the
following questions:

C 44/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.2.2002

1. Do Articles 20(2) and 17 of the Sixth Directive (1) or the
principles, in European law, of the protection of legitimate
expectations and legal certainty preclude adjustment —
in a case involving no fraud or abuse or change of
planned use as referred to in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the
judgment of the Court of Justice in the Schloßstrasse
case (2) — of the VAT deducted by a taxable person,
which he has paid on an item of (immovable) property
supplied to him with a view to the letting (subject to
VAT) of that property, for the years of the period of
adjustment under Article 20(2) which have not yet
elapsed at the time of the cessation of that right of option
(in this case, in fact, 1 January 1996) for the sole reason
that, as a result of a legislative amendment, the taxable
person is no longer entitled to waive exemption for that
letting?

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is
the legislative amendment inapplicable only in respect of
the deducted tax mentioned in Question 1, or is it also
inapplicable — until the period of adjustment has expired
— in respect of the taxed status (subject to the provisions
of Article 13(C) of the Sixth Directive) of the letting
referred to in Question 1?

(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 1977, L 145, p. 1).

(2) Judgment of 8.6.2000 in Case C-396/98.

Appeal brought on 19 December 2001 by Dieckmann &
Hansen GmbH against the judgment delivered on 23
October 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-155/99
between Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH and the Com-
mission of the European Communities

(Case C-492/01 P)

(2002/C 44/15)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2001
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-155/99 between Dieckmann
& Hansen GmbH and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 19 December 2001 by Dieckmann
& Hansen GmbH, represented by H.-J. Rabe, Rechtsanwalt, of
Messrs Latham & Watkins Schön Nolte, of Warburgstrasse 50,
D-20354 Hamburg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

(1)

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities of 23 October 2001;

(2) order

the

respondent

appellant
DEM 8 725 320,45 together with interest at 8 % per
annum from the date on which the action was brought;

to pay

to the

(3) declare that the respondent is liable to compensate the
appellant for all further damage suffered by it as a result
of its having had to dismiss its employees and close down
its business with effect from 31 December 1999 on
account of the ban on the importation of Kazakh caviar;

(4) order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The Court of First Instance wrongly assumed that, for the
purposes of adopting Decision 1999/244/EC (1), which
deleted Kazakhstan from the list of third countries, the
Commission enjoyed a wide discretion, with the result
that only a sufficiently serious breach of the principle of
sound administration protecting the appellant could
render the Commission liable to pay compensation.
The decision in question is based on the authorisation
conferred by Article 2(3) of Council Decision 95/408/EC,
which lays down, according to the relevant conditions
and content, and in conjunction with Article 2(2), specific,
restricted criteria to be observed by the Commission.
The Commission is required to ascertain whether the
authorities of the third country concerned have given
guarantees at least equivalent to those provided for by
Council Directive 91/493/EEC or, as the case may be,
whether those guarantees continue to exist.

Findings made in respect of such guarantees must reflect
concrete circumstances which are specified in Council
Directive 91/943 and concern conditions for the pro-
duction and placing on the market of the products to be
imported from the third country in question, especially
as regards the maintenance of hygiene standards for the
protection of consumers. Those conditions are to be
specifically determined. Agricultural or economic con-
siderations cannot be taken into consideration in such
determination.

— In any event, the Court of First Instance disregarded the
fact that the Commission manifestly and significantly
exceeded any discretion which it may have had: although
the veterinary inspectors instructed by the Commission
stated in their report that their assessment of the ‘general
situation in Kazakhstan so far as concerns the veterinary