Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-491/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof: Ottmar Hermann v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (Indirect tax — Directive 92/12/EEC — Local tax on the supply of alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption on the premises)
Date: 2005-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alcoholic beverage, excise duty, indirect tax, interpretation of the law, provision of services

C 115/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.5.2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 3 March 2005

in Case C-472/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Staatssecretaris van
Financiën v Arthur Andersen & Co. Accountants c.s. (1)

(First Chamber)

of 10 March 2005

in Case C-491/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof: Ottmar Hermann
v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (1)

(Indirect tax — Directive 92/12/EEC — Local tax on the
supply of alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption on
the premises)

(Sixth VAT directive — Article 13B(a) — Exemption of
services
transactions by insurance
brokers and insurance agents — Life assurance — ‘Back
office’ activities)

related to insurance

(2005/C 115/12)

(Language of the case: German)

(2005/C 115/11)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-472/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nether-
lands), made by decision of 7 November 2003, received at the
Court on 12 November 2003, in the proceedings Staatssecre-
taris van Financiën v Arthur Andersen & Co. Accountants c.s.
— the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of
(Rapporteur), N. Colneric,
the Chamber, K.
K. Schiemann and E. Juhász, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advo-
cate General, M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator,
for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 March 2005, the operative
part of which is as follows:

Lenaerts

Article 13B(a) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that 'back office'
activities, consisting in rendering services, for payment, to an insur-
ance company do not constitute the performance of services relating to
insurance transactions carried out by an insurance broker or an insur-
ance agent within the meaning of that provision.

In Case C-491/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof
(Germany), made by decision of 1 October 2003, received at
the Court on 20 November 2003, in the proceedings pending
before that court between Ottmar Hermann (in his capacity as
liquidator of Volkswirt Weinschänken GmbH) and Stadt
Frankfurt am Main — the Court (First Chamber), composed of
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), N.
Colneric, K. Schiemann and E. Juhász, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General, H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005, the
operative part of which is as follows:

1. A tax which is levied, in a catering context, on the supply for
consideration of alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption on
the premises must be considered to be a tax on the supply of
services relating to products subject to excise duty which cannot be
characterised as a turnover tax for the purposes of the second sub-
paragraph of Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25
February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject
to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of
such products.

2. The ‘same proviso’ to which taxes falling within the scope of the
second subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 92/12 are
subject refers only to the condition set out
in the first sub-
paragraph of that paragraph, namely that such ‘taxes do not give
rise
in trade between Member
States’.

to border-crossing formalities

(1) OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.

(1) OJ C 47 of 21.02.2004.