Case C-169/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by order of that Court of 1st May 2002 in the case of Dansk Postordreforening against Skatteministeriet
Date: 2002-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, member country, postal service, public service

29.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 156/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
by order of that Court of 1st May 2002 in the case of
Dansk Postordreforening against Skatteministeriet

(Case C-169/02)

(2002/C 156/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret (Eastern
Regional Court) of 1st May 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 6 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Dansk Postordreforening against Skatteministeriet on the
following questions:

1.

Is Article 13(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Council
Directive 77/388/EEC) (1) to be interpreted as meaning:

(i)

that a Member State has the right to levy VAT on
the conveyance by the public postal services of COD
letters and parcels to private persons where the
Member State has removed such items of mail from
the exclusive right and obligation to convey mail
under the Member State’s national postal legislation,
or

(ii)

is a Member State required not to levy VAT on such
items of mail?

2.

If neither Question 1(i) or 1(ii) can be answered unequivo-
cally in the affirmative, what criteria should be used to
establish whether a Member State has a right, under the
circumstances set out in Question 1(i), to levy VAT on
the conveyance of COD letters and parcels to private
individuals or is it required not to levy VAT on such
items of mail?

(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 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 7 May 2002 by Schlüsselverlag J.S.
Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H., J. Wimmer Medien GmbH
& Co KG, Styria Medien AG, Zeitungs- und Verlags-
Gesellschaft m.b.H., Eugen Ruß Vorarlberger Zeitungs-
verlag und Druckerei Gesellschaft mbH,
‘Die Presse’
Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. and ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’
Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co KG against the order
made on 11 March 2002 by the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-3/
02 between Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H.,
J. Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co KG, Styria Medien AG,
Zeitungs- und Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H., Eugen Ruß
Vorarlberger Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei Gesellschaft
mbH, ‘Die Presse’ Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. and ‘Salz-
burger Nachrichten’ Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co KG
and Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-170/02 P)

(2002/C 156/20)

An appeal against the order made on 11 March 2002 by the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
Chamber) in Case T-3/02 between Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser
Gesellschaft m.b.H., J. Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co KG, Styria
Medien AG, Zeitungs- und Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H., Eugen
Ruß Vorarlberger Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei Gesellschaft
mbH, ‘Die Presse’ Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. and ‘Salzburger
Nachrichten’ Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co KG and Com-
mission of the European Communities (1) was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 May
2002 by Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H., J.
Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co KG, Styria Medien AG, Zeitungs-
und Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H., Eugen Ruß Vorarlberger
Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei Gesellschaft mbH, ‘Die Presse’
Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. and ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’ Ver-
lags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co KG, represented by Dr Michael
Krüger, Rechtsanwalt, Linz.

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— Set aside the contested order and give judgment in
accordance with the form of order sought in the appli-
cation; in the alternative, set aside the contested order
and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance; in
either case, order the defendant Commission to pay the
costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Incompleteness of findings of fact

Instance took the Commission’s
The Court of First
statement that the letters of 12 July 2001 and 3 Septem-
ber 2001 ‘give the opinion of
the merger control
directorate and are not binding on the European Com-
mission’ as the basis for its legal assessment without
including the content of that statement in its findings of
fact.