Case C-63/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) by order of that court dated 21 February 2003, in the case of Centralan Property Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Date: 2004-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, building, interpretation of the law, sale, tax harmonisation

C 85/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.4.2004

Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
lic of Germany

(Case C-57/04)

(2004/C 85/32)

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser,
and Gregorio Valero Jordana, of the Commission’s Legal
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission
ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (1), or, in any
event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under that directive;

2.

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive expired on
27 November 2002.

(1) OJ 2001 L 309, p. 22.

Action brought on 12 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-62/04)

(2004/C 85/33)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Chiara Cattabriga, of its Legal Service, acting as
Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not implementing the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 2002/70/EC (1) of 26 July 2002
establishing requirements for the determination of levels
of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in feedingstuffs, or in any
event by failing to forward those provisions to the
Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive expired on
28 February 2003.

(1) OJ L 209 of 6.8.2002, p. 15.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England and Wales) by order of that court dated
21 February 2003, in the case of Centralan Property Ltd
against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

(Case C-63/04)

(2004/C 85/34)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England and Wales) dated 21 February 2003, which
was received at the Court Registry on 13 February 2004, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Centralan Property Ltd and
Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following
question:

Where: During the period of adjustment provided for in
article 20(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive (1) a taxable person
disposes of a building which is treated as a capital good; and
The disposal of the building is effected by way of two supplies,
being (i) the grant of a 999 year lease of the building (an
exempt transaction under article 13(B)(b) of the Directive) for
a premium of £6 million, followed three days later by (ii) the
sale of the freehold reversion (a taxable transaction under
article 13(B)(g) and article 4(3)(a) of the Directive) for a
price of £1,000 plus VAT and which either are or are not
preordained in the sense that once the first had been carried
out there was no chance that the second would not be, is
article 20(3) of the Sixth VAT Directive to be interpreted so
that:

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/19

(a)

(b)

(c)

the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period
of adjustment as if it had been applied for business
activities which are presumed to be fully taxed;

2.

the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period
of adjustment as if it had been applied for business
activities which are presumed to be fully exempt;

or

the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period
of adjustment as if it had been applied for business
activities which are presumed to be partly taxed and
partly exempt in the proportion of the respective values
of the taxed sale of the freehold reversion and the exempt
grant of the 999 year lease?

Is Article 6(2) applicable when determining which court
has jurisdiction to entertain an action on a warranty or
guarantee or third-party proceedings between insurers
and, if so, is such application contingent on there being a
connection between the various claims within the mean-
ing of Article 22 of the convention or, at the very least,
on evidence that there is sufficient connection between
such claims to demonstrate that there has been no
avoidance of jurisdiction?

(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, 13.6.1977 p. 1-40.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
Cassation, première chambre civile, (France) by order of
that Court of 20 January 2004 in the case of GIE Réunion
européenne, Axa, Winterthur, Le Continent, Assurances
mutuelles de France against Zurich Seguros, now Zurich
España, and Société Pyrénéenne de Transit d’Automobiles
‘Soptrans’ SA

(Case C-77/04)

(2004/C 85/35)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Cour de Cassation,
première chambre civile (Court of Cassation, first civil chamb-
er) (France) of 20 January 2004, received at the Court Registry
on 17 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of GIE Réunion européenne,Axa, Winterthur, Le Continent,
Assurances mutuelles de France against Zurich Seguros, now
Zurich España, and Société Pyrénéenne de Transit d’Automob-
iles ‘Soptrans’ SA on the following questions:

1. Are actions between insurers on a warranty or guarantee
based on multiple insurance or co-insurance rather than
on a reinsurance agreement covered by the provisions on
matters relating to insurance of Section 3 of Title II of the
Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, as amended
by the accession convention of 1978?

Action brought on 19 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg

(Case C-79/04)

(2004/C 85/36)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 19 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by M. Patakia and B. Schima, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 2002/40/EC of 8 May 2002
implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard
to energy labelling of household electric ovens (1), or in
any event by failing to forward those provisions to the
Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive expired on
31 December 2002.

(1) OJ L 128 of 15.5.2002, p. 45.