Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 March 2004 in Case C-395/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen): Transport Service NV v Belgische Staat and Bea Cars BVBA
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, invoicing, transport company

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/15

ORDER OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 29 January 2004

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 3 March 2004

in Case C-381/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour d'appel de Caen): Association comité écono-
mique régional agricole fruits et légumes de Bretagne
(Cerafel) v François Faou, GAEC de Kerlidou (1)

in Case C-395/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen): Transport
Service NV v Belgische Staat and Bea Cars BVBA (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Agriculture —
Common organisation of the markets — Fruit and vegeta-
bles — Producers' organisations — Scope of the rules
governing production and marketing — Imposition of fees
— Non-member producers)

(2004/C 94/29)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-381/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Cour d'appel de Caen (France) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Associa-
tion comité économique régional agricole fruits et légumes de
Bretagne (Cerafel) and François Faou, GAEC de Kerlidou — on
the interpretation of Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No
1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common orga-
nisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ, English
Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 437), as amended by Regulation
(EEC) No 3284/83 of the Council of 14 November 1983 (OJ
1983 L 325, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, A. Rosas,
A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and K. Lenaerts, Judges; J. Kokott,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
29 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 15b(1) and (8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the
Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the
market in fruit and vegetables, as amended by Regulation No
3284/83 (EEC) of the Council of 14 November 1983, is to be
interpreted in the following manner:

— a Member State which has applied Article 15b(1), by
making certain production and marketing rules laid down
by a producers' organisation mandatory for producers who
are established in the district of that organisation and who
are not members of it may not, without infringing the prin-
ciple of non-discrimination, apply Article 15b(8) by making
them liable for all or part of the fees paid by member
producers, without distinguishing according to whether or
not
those non-member producers are in an objectively
different situation from that of the member producers;

— non-member producers are in an objectively different situa-
tion from that of the member producers when the rules
adopted by that organisation do not apply or apply only
marginally to their products and the actions undertaken by
the organisation are of no benefit or only of marginal
benefit to those products;

— it is for the national courts to assess the evidence presented

on this point.

(1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — First and
Sixth VAT Directives — Principle of fiscal neutrality —
Application of VAT to each production and distribution
transaction — Recovery)

(2004/C 94/30)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-395/02; reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Transport Service NV and Belgische Staat, Bea
Cars BVBA, third party — on the interpretation of the principle
of the neutrality of the common system of value added tax —
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, President
of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de
Lapuerta, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has made an order on 3 March 2004, the operative
part of which is as follows:

The principle of the neutrality of the common system of value
added tax does not preclude a Member State from recovering
value added tax, after the event, from a taxable person which
has wrongly invoiced a supply of goods as being exempt from
that tax. It is irrelevant, in that regard, whether the value added
tax on the later sale of the goods concerned to the end user has
been paid to the public purse or not.

(1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 11 December 2003

in Case C-408/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de Cassation): Criminal proceedings against José
Antonio da Silva Carvalho (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive
91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving licences —
Residence condition — Obtaining of a driving licence in a
Member State other than the one in which the holder of
that licence resides)

(2004/C 94/31)