Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-308/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): GIL Insurance Ltd and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Tax on insurance premiums — Higher rate applicable to certain insurance contracts — Insurance connected with the rental or sale of domestic appliances — State aid)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, approximation of laws, competition law, insurance, interpretation of the law, tax exemption

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/11

3) Deception or obvious negligence on the part of persons whom the
principal has engaged to carry out obligations contracted under
the Community external transit system does not, in itself, exclude
repayment to the principal of duties incurred as a result of the
removal of goods placed under that system from customs supervi-
sion, on condition that no deception or obvious negligence is attri-
butable to the principal.

obligations under the first sentence of Article 2(2) of Council
Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation
of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by
Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, inasmuch as
it has not made all mineral oils intended for use as heating fuel
subject to excise duties;

(1) OJ C 245, 1.9.2001.

2) Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 245, 1.9.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-240/01: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Excise
duties on mineral oils — Directive 92/81/EEC — Mineral
oils used as heating fuel)

(2004/C 118/19)

(Language of the case: German)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-308/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): GIL Insurance Ltd
and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Tax on insurance premiums —
Higher rate applicable to certain insurance contracts —
Insurance connected with the rental or sale of domestic appli-
ances — State aid)

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

(2004/C 118/20)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-240/01: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and K. Gross), with an address for service
in Luxembourg, v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D.
Plessing and M. Lumma) — application for a declaration that,
by applying Paragraph 4(1)(2)(b) of the Mineralölsteuergesetz
(Law on the taxation of mineral oils) of 21 December 1992
(BGBl. I, p. 2185, corrigendum in 1993 I, p. 169), the Federal
Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 2(2) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October
1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties
on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12), as amended by Council
Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 365, p.
46), in so far as that Member State has not made all mineral
oils intended for use as heating fuel subject to excise duties —
the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris (Rappor-
teur), acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29
April 2004, in which it:

1) Declares that, by applying Paragraph 4(1)(2)(b) of the Mineralöl-
steuergesetz (Law on the taxation of mineral oils) of 21 December
1992, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its

In Case C-308/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between GIL Insurance Ltd, UK Consumer Electronics
Ltd, Consumer Electronics Insurance Co. Ltd, Direct Vision
Rentals Ltd, Homecare Insurance Ltd, Pinnacle Insurance plc
and Commissioners of Customs and Excise — on the interpre-
tation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and of Arti-
cles 87 EC and 88 EC — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: C.W.A. Timmermans, acting for the President of the Fifth
Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A.
Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29
April 2004, in which it has ruled:

1. A tax on insurance premiums such as that at issue in the main
proceedings is compatible with Article 33 of Sixth Council Direc-
tive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.

C 118/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

2. Article 13(B)(a) of

the Sixth Directive 77/388, under which
insurance transactions are exempt from value added tax, does not
preclude, in the case of a tax on insurance premiums such as that
at issue in the main proceedings, the introduction of a special rate
which is identical to the standard rate of value added tax, since
that tax is compatible with Article 33 of the Sixth Directive
77/388, so that the procedure provided for in Article 27 of that
directive, which obliges any Member State wishing to introduce
special measures for derogation from that directive to seek prior
authorisation from the Council of the European Union, does not
have to be complied with before the introduction of that rate.

(1) OJ C 303, 27.10.2001.

P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

1) Dismisses the application;

2) Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs;

3) Orders Ireland, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Portuguese
Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and the European Parliament to pay their own costs.

(1) OJ C 303, 27.10.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-338/01: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Council of the European Union (1)

(Directive 2001/44/EC — Choice of legal basis)

(2004/C 118/21)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-338/01: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. Lyal), with an address for service in Luxembourg,
supported by European Parliament (Agents: R. Passos and A.
Baas), with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of
the European Union (Agents: M. Sims-Robertson and F. Florindo
Gijón), supported by Ireland (Agents: D. O'Hagan, assisted by E.
Fitzsimons SC, K. Maguire BL and D. Moloney BL), with an
address for service in Luxembourg, the Grand Duchy of Luxem-
bourg (Agent:
J. Faltz), the Portuguese Republic (Agents: L.
Fernandes, V. Guimarães and Â. Seiça Neves), with an address
for service in Luxembourg, and by the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: J.E. Collins, assisted
by D. Wyatt QC), with an address for service in Luxembourg
— application for
annulment of Council Directive
2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001 amending Directive 76/308/EEC
on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from
operations forming part of the system of financing the Euro-
pean Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agri-
cultural levies and customs duties and in respect of value added
tax and certain excise duties (OJ 2001 L 175, p. 17) and for
the maintenance of the effects of that directive until the entry
into force of a directive adopted on the correct legal basis —
the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting
as President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-

the

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-341/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landesgericht Korneuburg): Plato Plastik Robert Frank
GmbH v Caropack Handelsgesellschaft mbH (1)

(Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and waste packaging —
Plastic carrier bags — National legislation on the collection
and recovery of used packaging and waste packaging —
Collection and recovery of used packaging and waste packa-
ging — Obligation to have recourse to an approved under-
taking or to organise a collection system — Admissibility)

(2004/C 118/22)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-341/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Landesgericht (Regional Court) Korneuburg (Austria)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH and Caropack
Handelsgesellschaft mbH — on the interpretation of Article 3(1)
of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ
1994 L 365, p. 10) and other Community provisions — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans,
the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas
acting for
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
(Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr,
General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it
has ruled:

the President of