Case C-291/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court dated 30 June 2003, in the case of MyTravel plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, tax system, travel, travel agency

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/17

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul or vary Commission Decision C(2003) 1539 in connec-
tion with the exclusion from Community financing of certain
expenditure by the Member States in the context of the EAGGF
— Guarantee section, in regard to the chapter concerning
financial corrections imposed on the Hellenic Republic in the
sector of arable cultivation for the financial years 2000 and
2001.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Misinterpretation of provisions;

— Misappraisal of factual circumstances;

— Defective statement of reasons;

— Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 5(2)(c)
of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 in conjunction with
Document VI/5330/97;

— Misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 6 and 7

of Regulation No 3508/92.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords
by order of that court dated 30 June 2003, in the case of
Regina against London Borough of Bromley, ex parte
Diane Barker (FC)

(Case C-290/03)

(2003/C 213/29)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
dated 30 June 2003, which was received at the Court Registry
on 3 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Regina
and London Borough of Bromley, ex parte Diane Barker (FC)
on the following questions:

(1)

Is identification of ‘the decision of the competent auth-
ority or authorities which entitles the developer to
proceed with the project’ (article 1(2) of Directive 85/
337/EEC (1) (‘the Directive’)) exclusively a matter for the
national court applying national law?

(2) Does the Directive require an environmental

impact
assessment to be carried out if, following the grant of
outline planning permission subject to conditions that
reserved matters be approved, without an environmental

impact assessment being carried out,
it appears when
approval of reserved matters is sought that the project
may have significant effects on the environment by virtue
inter alia of its nature, size or location (article 2(1) of the
Directive)?

(3)

In circumstances where:

(a) national planning law provides for the grant of
outline planning permission at an initial stage of the
planning process and requires consideration by the
competent authority at that stage as to whether an
environmental
impact assessment is required for
purposes of the Directive; and

(b)

the competent authority then determines that it is
unnecessary to carry out an environmental impact
assessment and grants outline planning permission
subject to conditions reserving specified matters for
later approval; and

(c)

that decision can then be challenged in the national
courts;

may national law, consistently with the Directive, pre-
clude a competent authority from requiring that an
environmental impact assessment be carried out at a later
stage of the planning process?

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (OJ L 175, 05.07.1985, p. 40).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of
that court dated 30 June 2003, in the case of MyTravel plc
against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

(Case C-291/03)

(2003/C 213/30)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by direction of the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, dated 30 June 2003,
which was received at the Court Registry on 4 July 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of MyTravel plc and Com-
missioners of Customs and Excise on the following questions:

C 213/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

On a correct interpretation of article 26 of the Sixth Direc-
tive (1) on value added tax and of the judgment of the Court of
Justice in Cases C-308/96 and C-94/97 Madgett and Baldwin
[1998] ECR I-6229:

by the tour operator on seat-only sales in the financial year in
question or (b) the average revenue achieved by the tour
operator on seat-only sales in the financial year in question?

I.

In what,
if any, circumstances is it open to a tour
operator, which has completed its value added tax return
for a financial year using the actual cost method which
was the only method laid down in national legislation
implementing the Directive, subsequently to recalculate
its VAT liability partly in accordance with the market
value method described in paragraph 46 of that judg-
ment?

(1)

(2)

In particular may such a tour operator use the
market value selectively in relation to different
financial years, and if so, in what circumstances?

In a case where the tour operator sells some of the
in-house components of its packages to the public
on a non-package basis (in this case flights) but does
not sell other in-house components of some of its
packages to the public on a non-package basis
(in this case cruises and campsites) can the tour
operator:

(a)

(b)

use the market value method in relation to
those packages (being the vast majority) where
it can determine the value of all its in-house
supplies (in this case flights) by reference to
sales it has made to the public on a non-
package basis;

in cases where the package includes in-house
elements which the tour operator does not sell
to the public on a non-package basis (in this
case camp sites and cruises), can the tour
operator use the market value method to
determine the value of those in-house supplies
that it does sell to the public (in this case the
flights) where it has not been possible to
establish a market value for other parts of the
package.

(3) Must the use of the combination of methods be
(a) simpler or (b) significantly simpler or (c) not
significantly more complicated

(4) Must the market value method produce the same,
or a very similar, VAT liability as does the cost-
based method?

(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, 13.06.77, p. 1).

Action brought on 4 July 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Republic of Finland

(Case C-292/03)

(2003/C 213/31)

An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 July
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Konstantinidis and P. Aalto, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. Declare under Article 226 of the Treaty establishing the
European Union that, by failing to adopt
the laws,
regulations and administrative measures to comply with
Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life
vehicles (1) or in any event in failing to inform the
Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

2. Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs of the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
21 April 2002.

Is it possible in the circumstances of the present case to
identify that part of the in-house service relating to flights sold
as part of a holiday package by taking either (a) the average
cost of an airline seat increased by the average margin achieved

(1) OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34.