Case C-111/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten by order of that court of 24 February 2005 in Aktiebolaget NN v Skatteverket
Date: 2005-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sweden, VAT, goods and services, interpretation of the law, provision of services, tax harmonisation, tax system

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te Amsterdam by judgment of that court of 18 February
2005 in the proceedings between ASM Lithography B.V.
and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Zuid/
kantoor Roermond

(Case C-100/05)

(2005/C 106/35)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of
te
Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal)
(Nether-
lands) of 18 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on
28 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between ASM Lithography B.V. and Inspecteur van de Belas-
tingdienst/Douane Zuid/kantoor Roermond (Tax Inspectorate/
Customs South, Roermond office) on the following question:

the Gerechtshof

1. With regard to compensating products such as those here in
issue [point 2.1. of the reference for a preliminary ruling],
which are considered to have been released for free circula-
tion, must the customs debt be determined on the basis of
the rules of assessment referred to in Article 122(c) of the
Community Customs Code (CCC) (1) even where the person
concerned has made no prior and express request in that
regard?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, is it necessary
to grant a subsequent application — after notification of the
amount by way of duty arising from the customs debt
which is determined on the basis of the rules of assessment
referred to in Article 121(1) of the CCC — for (re)calcu-
lation of the amount of customs debt on the basis of the
rules of assessment referred to in Article 122(c) of the CCC
which is made in connection with an application for repay-
ment pursuant to Article 236 of the CCC?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-
lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of 19 October
1992, p. 1).

1. In a situation like the present case,

is it contrary to the
provisions on free movement of capital between Member
States and third countries to tax A in respect of the distribu-
tion from X because X is not established in a State within
the EEA or in a State with which Sweden has a taxation
convention that contains a provision on exchange of infor-
mation?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regerings-
rätten by order of that court of 15 October 2004 in Skat-
teverket v A and B

(Case C-102/05)

(2005/C 106/37)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten (Supreme
Administrative Court) (Sweden) of 15 October 2004, received
at the Court Registry on 28 February 2005, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings between Skatteverket (Tax Board) and
A and B on the following questions:

1. Is it contrary to the provisions on free movement of capital
between the Member States and third countries, in a situa-
tion like the present case, for A and B to be taxed less
favourably in respect of dividends from X because X's
subsidiary Y conducts business in Russia rather than in
Sweden?

2. Does it have any relevance whether A and B acquired shares
in X before or after business in Russia was commenced or
modified?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regerings-
rätten by order of that court of 15 October 2004 in the
proceedings Skatteverket v A

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regerings-
rätten by order of that court of 24 February 2005 in
Aktiebolaget NN v Skatteverket

(Case C-101/05)

(2005/C 106/36)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

(Case C-111/05)

(2005/C 106/38)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten (Supreme
Administrative Court) (Sweden) of 15 October 2004, received
at the Court Registry on 28 February 2005, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings between Skatteverket (Tax Board) and
A on the following question:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) of
24 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 March
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Aktiebolaget NN and Skatteverket on the following question:

C 106/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2005

1. Is a taxable transaction for the supply and installation of a
cable, which is run between the territories of two Member
States and also outside Community territory and to which
the clearly greater part of the total cost is attributable, to be
considered a supply of goods for the purposes of the provi-
sions of the directive (1) regarding the place of taxable trans-
actions?

2. If such a transaction is instead to be considered the supply
of a service, is that service to be regarded as having such a
connection with immovable property that the place of the
service is to be determined in accordance with Article
9(2)(a)?

1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2001/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 27 September 2001 amending Directives
78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC and 86/635/EEC as regards the
valuation rules for the annual and consolidated accounts of
certain types of companies as well as of banks and other
financial institutions (1) and, in any event, by having failed
to communicate them 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.

3. If the answer to either the first or second question is in the
affirmative, is Article 8(1)(a), or alternatively Article 9(2)(a),
to be interpreted as meaning that the transaction is to be
split on the basis of the territorial positioning of the cable?

Pleas in law and main arguments

4. If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, are
Article 8(1)(a), or alternatively Article 9(2)(a), and Articles
2(1) and 3(1) to be understood as meaning that value added
tax is not payable on that part of the supply of goods or
services relating to the area outside the territory of the Com-
munity?

(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 L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).

Action brought on 8 March 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-115/05)

(2005/C 106/39)

(Language of the case: French)

the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
An action against
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 8 March 2005 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by G. Braun, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

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

The period for transposition of the Directive into national law
expired on 1 January 2004.

(1) OJ L 283, 27.10.2001, p. 28.

Action brought on 10 March 2005 by the Commission of
the Portuguese
the European Communities

against

Republic

(Case C-118/05)

(2005/C 106/40)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

Justice of

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 10
March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by António Caeiros and Sara Pardo, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

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

— principally, declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions which are necessary in
order to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC (1) of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000
establishing a framework for Community action in the field
of water policy, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 24(1) of that directive;