Case C-305/03: Action brought on 16 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2003-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, VAT, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, arts, auction sale, import, tax relief

20.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/7

Action brought on 2 July 2003 by the Italian Republic
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-301/03)

(2003/C 226/10)

the Commission of

An action against
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 2 July 2003 by the Italian Republic,
represented by I. M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and G. Aiello,
avvocato dello Stato.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

of

for

Committee

the Advisory

— annul the act of the Commission reference CDRR-03-
0013-00-it (document 4), referred to in the notes of the
Commission described below as an act ‘communicated
officially to the Member States on the occasion of the
meeting
the
Development and Conversion of Regions of 23 April
2003’ (note of 2 June 2003, No 107135) and the note
of 14 May 2003 no 106387 (document 6), received on
15 May 2003, whereby the Directorate for Regional
Operations
in France, Greece and Italy within the
Directorate-General for Regional Policy of the European
Commission gave notice of its decision on the final date
for the eligibility of expenditure relating to modifications
to the programming complements for POR Sardegna
2000-2006;
the note of 28 May 2003 No 107051
(document 7), received on 2 June 2003, whereby the
Directorate for Regional Operations in France, Greece
and Italy within the Directorate-General
for Regional
Policy of the European Commission gave notice of its
decision on the final date for the eligibility of expenditure
relating to modifications to the programming comple-
ments for POR Sicilia 2000-2006; the note of 2 June
2003 No 107135 (document 8), received in 2003 (1),
whereby the Directorate for Regional Operations in
France, Greece and Italy within the Directorate-General
for Regional Policy of the European Commission gave
notice of its decision on the final date for the eligibility
of expenditure relating to modifications to the program-
ming complements for DOCUP Lazio 2000-2006, toge-
ther with all connected acts and decisions;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

B. Infringement of Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999

According to the applicant, the final date for eligibility of
expenditure relating to programming complements is fixed,
with no possibility of derogation, by the general regulation.
regulation imply normal
that
The specific provisions of
retroactivity from the moment of contribution from the
Funds (the date on which the Commission receives an applica-
tion for assistance) unless there are changes affecting the
facts set out in the decision to grant a contribution from the
Funds.

The Commission, on the other hand, has determined that,
where modifications are made to a programming complement,
the starting date for the eligibility of expenditure is established
by the Surveillance Committee and may not precede the
decision of
in
question. The modified programming complement must
specify the starting date for the eligibility of new expenditure
occasioned by the modification.

the Committee approving the amendment

If the Commission's view were to be applied, Article 30(2) of
the regulation would loose all preceptive force because any
programming complement
implements the assistance
that
approved by decision of the Commission would postpone
the date for the eligibility of expenditure and the starting date
for the eligibility of expenditure fixed by the regulation would
never be used.

C. The applicant claims that the acts complained of are unlaw-
ful because they lack any proper legal base and constitute
an abuse of power involving the perversion of proceedings,
lack of jurisdiction, and infringement of the regulation by the
Commission.

(1) Received probably on 30 June 2003.
(2) OJ L 161 of 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Action brought on 16 July 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-305/03)

(2003/C 226/11)

A. Infringement of Articles 15 and 34 of Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 (2)

By the acts in issue the Commission actively intervened in the
process of modifying programming complements, or in other
words, the actual management of programming. That is not
within its remit, as defined by the regulation cited and the
Commission had no powers and transgressed into a sphere of
competence not its own.

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 16 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Richard Lyal, acting
as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1)

declare that by applying a reduced rate of value added tax
to the commission paid to auctioneers on the sale by

C 226/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2003

auction of works of art, antiques and collectors" items
imported under
temporary importation arrangements,
the United Kingdom has failed to comply with its obliga-
tions under Articles 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3) and 16(1) of
the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 (1) on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes;

2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view, that by not taxing the auction-
eer's profit margin on imported works of art, collectors"
items and antiques at the standard rate, the United Kingdom
has failed to comply with its obligations under the above
mentioned articles of the Sixth VAT Directive.

In the Commission's view, there are two taxable events for
VAT purposes in cases of importation and sale by auction: an
importation of goods within the meaning of Article 7(1) and
a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 26(a).

Contrary to the view held by the United Kingdom, the VAT
system does not imply double taxation, because it is not
required that VAT at the import rate should first be charged
on the total value of the goods after the sale, and then be
charged again at the standard rate on the auctioneer's profit
margin.

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turn-
over taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
Social No 3 de Orense by order of that Court of 24 June
2003 in the case of Cristalina Salgado Alonso against
Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria
General de la Seguridad Social

(Case C-306/03)

(2003/C 226/12)

Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social on the
following questions:

1. Do Article 12 and Articles 39 to 42 of

the Treaty
Establishing the European Community and Article 45 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1),
preclude a national provision under which retirement con-
tributions which the unemployment benefit agency pays
on behalf of a worker during the period in which he
receives certain unemployment benefits are not to be
taken into account for the purposes of completing the
various qualifying periods established in the national legis-
lation and of conferring entitlement to the old-age pen-
sion, when, because of a long period of unemployment,
supposedly protected, it is absolutely impossible for that
worker to obtain credit for retirement contributions other
than those which are invalidated by law, with the result
that only workers who have exercised the right to freedom
of movement are affected by that provision of national law
and are unable to qualify for the national retirement pen-
sion, despite the fact that, under Article 45 of the afore-
mentioned EEC Regulation, those qualifying periods would
have to be regarded as completed?

2. Do Article 12 and Articles 39 to 42 of

the Treaty
Establishing the Community and Article 48(1) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 preclude
national provisions under which retirement contributions
which the unemployment benefit agency pays on behalf of
a worker during the period in which he receives certain
unemployment benefits are not to be taken into account
for the purposes of determining whether the total duration
of insurance periods or periods of residence covered by the
legislation of that Member State amounts to one year,
when, because of a long period of unemployment, suppos-
edly protected, it is absolutely impossible for that worker
to obtain credit for retirement contributions other than
those which fall due and are paid during unemployment,
so that only workers who have exercised the right to free-
dom of movement are affected by that provision of
national law and are unable to qualify for the national
retirement pension, despite the fact that, under Article 48
(1) of the aforementioned EEC Regulation, the national
benefit agency could not be alleviated of the obligation
to award national benefits?

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of
the European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo
Social No 3 de Orense (Social Court No 3, Orense) of
24 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on 17 July
2003,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Cristalina
Salgado Alonso against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed persons and
their families moving within the Community (English special edi-
tion: Series II Chapter 1971(II), p. 416).