Case C-41/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 24 January 2005 in Air Liquide Industries Belgium SA v Province de Liège
Date: 2005-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, charge having equivalent effect, engine, gas supply, interpretation of the law, pipeline transport, pressure equipment, tax exemption, tax rebate

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
première instance de Liège (Belgium) by judgment of that
court of 24 January 2005 in Air Liquide Industries
Belgium SA v Province de Liège

ited by Articles 90 et seq. of the Treaty, if it is apparent that
the transport of natural gas is exempt from that tax?

5. If the answer to the questions above is ‘yes’, is a taxpayer
who has paid the tax on motive force justified in seeking
the reimbursement of that tax from 16 July 1992, the date
on which the Legros and Others judgment was given?

(Case C-41/05)

(2005/C 93/16)

(Language of the case: French)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de première
instance de Liège (Belgium) of 24 January 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 3 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between Air Liquide Industries Belgium SA
and Province de Liège on the following questions:

1. Must exemption from a provincial

tax on motive force
granted solely in respect of motors used in natural gas
to the exclusion of motors used for other
installations,
industrial gases, be regarded as State aid within the meaning
of Article 87 of the consolidated version of the Treaty estab-
lishing the European Community?

2. If the answer to the preceding question is ‘yes’, must the
national court, before which an action is brought by a
taxpayer who has not enjoyed exemption from the provin-
cial tax on motive force, order the public authority which
levied that tax to repay it to that taxpayer if it finds that, in
law and in fact, it is not possible for the public authority
which levied that tax to claim it from the taxpayer who
enjoyed exemption from the tax on motive force?

3. Must a tax on motive force levied on motors used for trans-
porting industrial gas by means of pipes under very high
pressure, which requires the use of compression installa-
tions, be regarded as a charge having equivalent effect
prohibited by Articles 25 et seq. of the consolidated version
of the Treaty, if it is apparent that, de facto, it is levied by a
province or a municipality on the transport of industrial gas
outside its territorial limits, when in the same conditions the
transport of natural gas is exempt from such a tax?

4. Must a tax on motive force levied on motors used for trans-
porting industrial gas by means of pipes under very high
pressure, which requires the use of compression installa-
tions, be regarded as an internal taxation measure, prohib-

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassa-
tion de Belgique (Court of Cassation, Belgium)
(First
Chamber), by order of that court of 20 January 2005, in
the case of the Belgian State v Ring Occasions and Fortis
Banque

(Case C-42/05)

(2005/C 93/17)

(Language of the case: French)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Cour de cassation de
Belgique (First Chamber), of 20 January 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 3 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between the Belgian State and Ring Occasions
and Fortis Banque, on the following questions:

1. Where the recipient of a supply of goods is a taxable person
who has entered into a contract
in good faith without
knowledge of a fraud committed by the seller, does the prin-
ciple of fiscal neutrality in respect of value added tax mean
that the fact that the contract of sale is void, by reason of a
rule of domestic civil law which renders the contract incur-
ably void as contrary to public policy on the ground of
illegal basis of the contract attributable to the seller, cannot
cause that taxable person to lose his right to deduct that
tax?

2. Is the answer different where the contract is incurably void

for fraudulent evasion of VAT itself?