Case C-236/05: Action brought on 30 May 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2005-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, common fisheries policy, exchange of information, fishery management, fishing controls

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/17

1. Is the first sentence of Article 17(7) of Sixth Council Direc-
tive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1), in relation to para-
graph 2 of that article, on the harmonisation of the laws of
the Member States on turnover taxes, to be interpreted as:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 23 May 2005 in
the proceedings brought by Oy Esab

(a) precluding from being treated as ‘consultation of the
VAT Committee’, for the purposes of Article 29 of that
directive, the mere notification by a Member State of the
adoption of a rule of national
like the present
Article 19a(1)(c) and (d) of Presidential Decree No
633/1972, as subsequently extended, which restricts the
right of VAT deduction in respect of the use and main-
tenance of goods under Article 17(2), on the basis that
the VAT Committee has merely taken notice of the
adoption of that rule;

law,

(b) also precluding from being treated as a measure falling
within its scope any restriction whatsoever of the right
to deduct VAT connected to the purchase, use and
maintenance of the goods referred to in (a) introduced
before the consultation of
the VAT Committee and
maintained in force by means of various legislative
extensions adopted in unbroken succession for more
than 25 years;

(c) if the answer to 1(b) is in the affirmative, the Court is
for determining
guidelines
the
asked to provide
maximum period,
such extensions on
if any,
grounds of cyclical economic reasons referred to in
Article 17(7) of the Sixth Directive, or else to state
whether the failure to observe the temporary nature of
the derogations (repeated over time) confers on the tax
payer the right to deduct.

for

2. If the requirements and conditions for the procedure under
Article 17(7) referred to above have not been complied
with, the Court of Justice is asked to state whether Article
17(2) of that directive is to be interpreted as precluding a
rule of national law or an administrative practice adopted
by a Member State after the entry into force of the Sixth
Directive (1 January 1979 for Italy) which, objectively and
restricts VAT deduction in
without
respect of the purchase, use and maintenance of certain
motor vehicles.

limitation in time,

(1) OJ L 145 of 13/06/1997 p. 1.

(Case C-231/05)

(2005/C 193/26)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Korkein hallinto-oikeus of
23 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 25 May 2005,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by Oy Esab
on the following question:

Are Articles 43 and 56 of the Treaty establishing the European
Communities, having regard to Article 58 of the Treaty and
Council Directive 90/435/EEC on the common system of taxa-
tion applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries
of different Member States, (1) to be interpreted as precluding a
system such as that of the Finnish group subsidy legislation in
which a condition for the deductibility in taxation of a group
subsidy is that both the donor and the donee of the group
subsidy are companies resident in Finland?

(1) 23 July 1990, OJ L 225 of 20.8.1990, p. 6.

Action brought on 30 May 2005 by Commission of the
European Communities against the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-236/05)

(2005/C 193/27)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 30 May 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Karen Banks,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

C 193/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.8.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that the United Kingdom has breached its obliga-
tions under Article 19 (i) first and third indents, of Council
Regulation (EEC) 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing
a control
system applicable to the common fisheries
policy (1), by communicating with considerable delay the
data required by those provisions,

completion and collation of claim declarations by cereal
the Integrated
producers and others in the context of
Administration and Control System (IACS)
in respect of
2001, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under Directive 92/50/EEC, (1) and in particular Arti-
cles 3(2), 7, 11(1), and 15(2) thereof, as well as the general
principle of transparency.

2. order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The provisions of Article 19(i) of Regulation 2847/93 require
the Member States to transmit certain data to the Commission,
is
by computer transmission, within a specific deadline.
essential that the Commission has this data available in order
to manage and develop the common fisheries policy, in par-
ticular with regard to conservation, management and exploita-
tion of living aquatic resources.

It

The United Kingdom communicated the data required by
Article 19(i) with considerable delay for the years 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002 and 2003. Deadlines for 2004 have not been met
and no data has yet been received for 2005. The Commission
therefore submits that the United Kingdom is in breach of its
obligations under the aforementioned provision of Regulation
2847/93.

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p.1

Action brought on 30 May 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-237/05)

(2005/C 193/28)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 May
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by M. Patakia and X. Lewis, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, owing to the practice followed by the compe-
tent authorities in regard to the works involved in the

The Commission received a complaint in relation to the direct
award to PASEGES (2) of
the programme contract, and its
implementing agreements,
in relation to the provision of
multiple services in connection with the application of the Inte-
grated Administration and Control System (IACS) in respect of
2001.

In light of the Court's case-law, the Commission considers that
the Greek authorities ought to have applied the rules of proce-
dural openness laid down by Directive 92/50 in Titles III, IV, V,
and VI.

The Commission further considers that the Hellenic Republic,
on the one hand, has not substantiated the existence of
grounds for derogation under Article 11(3)(b) of Directive
92/50 and, on the other, has wrongly categorised the services
in question as coming under Annex 1B to the directive.

In the alternative, the Commission maintains that the Member
States are not relieved of the obligation to maintain a certain
degree of openness even in regard to services coming under
Annex 1B to the directive.

Finally, the Commission considers that, apart from the conti-
nuing variance in regard to the interpretation of the relevant
provisions of the directive at issue as between the Greek autho-
rities and the Commission, application of the directive in prac-
tice has not been secured, contrary to the assertions of the
Greek authorities.

the Commission considers

the Hellenic
Accordingly,
Republic infringed its obligations under Articles 3(2), 7, 11(1)
and 15(2) of Directive 92/50/EEC, as well as the general prin-
ciple of transparency.

that

(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
(2) Panellinia Sinomospondia Enoseon Georgikon Sinetairismon (Pan-

Hellenic association of unions of agricultural cooperatives).