Case C-458/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber of the Tribunal administratif de Caen, by judgment of that court dated 5 October 2004, in the case of Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Flers-Argentan against Directeur des services fiscaux, Dircofi Ouest
Date: 2005-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, credit transfer, delivery, distributive trades, interpretation of the law, provision of services, tax exemption

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/11

For the purposes of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 3577/92 (1),
does the term ‘voyage which follows or precedes the cabotage
voyage’ apply only to a voyage which is ‘functionally and
commercially autonomous, that is with cargo on board, the
final/starting point of which is a foreign port’, as referred to in
the contested measure in the present case, or does it also apply
to a voyage without cargo on board (that is, a ‘voyage in
ballast’)?

(1) OJ L 364 of 12.12.1992, p. 7.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber of
the Tribunal administratif de Caen, by judgment of that
court dated 5 October 2004, in the case of Chambre de
commerce et d'industrie de Flers-Argentan against Direc-
teur des services fiscaux, Dircofi Ouest

(Case C-458/04)

(2005/C 19/22)

(Language of the case: French)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of First Chamber of
the
Tribunal administratif de Caen (Caen Administrative Court)
dated 5 October 2004, which was received at
the Court
Registry on 29 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Flers-Argentan
(Flers-Argentan Chamber of Commerce and Industry) against
Directeur des services fiscaux (Head of the Fiscal Authorities),
Dircofi Ouest.

The First Chamber of the Tribunal administratif de Caen asks
the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the question
whether internal financial transfers constitute subsidies within
the meaning of Article 19 of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) for the purposes of the calcula-
tion of the deductible proportion.

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation 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)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrative Regionale per la Lombardia, Milano, by
order of that court of 29 September 2004, in the case of
Federconsumatori and Others against Comune di Milano
(Municipality of Milan) and Aem Spa

(Case C-463/04)

(2005/C 19/23)

(Language of the case: Italian)

la Lombardia, Milano, Sezione I

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministrative
Regionale per
(Regional
Administrative Court for Lombardy, Milan, Division I) (Italy) of
the Court Registry on 2
29 September 2004, received at
November 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Feder-
consumatori and Others against Comune di Milano (Munici-
pality of Milan) and Aem Spa, on the following questions:

— Can Article 2449 of the Civil Code, as applied in the
circumstances at issue in this case, be held to be compatible
with Article 56 of the EC Treaty as interpreted in the judg-
ments in Cases C-58/99, C-503/99 and C-483/99, C-98/01
and C-463/00, when it is invoked by a public entity which,
although it has lost control by operation of law over the
company limited by shares, retains a substantial share-
holding (33.4 %) as a shareholder holding a relative
majority of the shares, thereby obtaining a disproportionate
power of control?

— Can Article 2449 of the Civil Code, applied in conjunction
with Article 4 of Decree-Law No 332 of 31 May 1994
converted into Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, be held to be
compatible with Article 56 of the EC Treaty as interpreted
in the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases C-58/99,
C-503/99 and C-483/99, C-98/01 and C-463/00, when it is
invoked by a public entity which, although it has lost
control by operation of law over the company limited by
shares, retains a substantial shareholding (33.4 %) as a
shareholder holding a relative majority of the shares, and
thereby obtaining a disproportionate power of control?