Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-30/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano in Ursel Koschitzki v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Old-age pension — Calculation of the theoretical amount of benefit — Inclusion of the amount necessary to reach the minimum pension under national legislation)
Date: 2005-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, pension scheme, social-security benefit, social-security harmonisation

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/15

1. A new share issue does not constitute a transaction falling within
the scope of Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC)
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
the
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by
Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995.

the laws of

2. Article 17(1) and (2) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by
Directive 95/7, confer the right to deduct in its entirety the VAT
charged on the expenses incurred by a taxable person for the
various supplies acquired by him in connection with a share issue,
provided that all the transactions undertaken by the taxable person
in the context of his economic activity constitute taxed transac-
tions.

The condition for obtaining a differentiated export refund laid down
in Article 17(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of
27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the
application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products,
as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1384/95 of 19
June 1995, as regards in particular the adjustments necessary for the
implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture,
namely clearance through customs for release of the product concerned
for consumption in the non-member country of destination, is fulfilled
where that product, on which import duties were paid in that country,
undergoes substantial processing or working there within the meaning
of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12
October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, even if the
product deriving from such processing or working is then re-exported
to the Community, with reimbursement of the duties levied in that
country and payment of customs import duties in the Community.

(1) OJ C 47 of 21.02.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-515/03:
Finanzgericht Hamburg)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling,
in Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb

GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)

(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
Export refunds — Conditions for granting them — Import of
the product into the non-member country of destination —
Meaning — Customs formalities for release for consumption
in the non-member country — Substantial processing or
working — Reimportation into the Community — Abuse of
law)

(2005/C 217/28)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-515/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany),
made by decision of 12 November 2003, received at the Court
on 9 December 2003, in the proceedings between Eichsfelder
Schlachtbetrieb GmbH and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas —
the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of
the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J. Male-
novský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advo-
cate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave
a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it ruled:

In those circumstances, reimbursement of the export refund may never-
theless be required if the national court considers that evidence of an
abusive practice on the part of the exporter has been produced,
in
accordance with the rules of national law.

(1) OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-30/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Bolzano in Ursel Koschitzki v Istituto
nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (1)

(Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — Old-age pension — Calculation of the theore-
tical amount of benefit — Inclusion of the amount necessary
to reach the minimum pension under national legislation)

(2005/C 217/29)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case C-30/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Bolzano (Italy), made by
decision of 9 January 2004, received at
the Court on 28
January 2004, in the proceedings between Ursel Koschitzki and

C 217/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2005

Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) — the Court
(First Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the
Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the First Chamber,
N. Colneric (Rapporteur), K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič,
Judges; F.G.
Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July
2005, in which it ruled:

Article 46(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14
June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families
moving within the Community, in its version amended and updated
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December
1995, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the
theoretical amount of the pension on which the calculation of the pro
rata pension is based, the competent institution is not required to take
into consideration a supplement intended to bring the pension to the
minimum level under national legislation where, on account of the
fact that the income limits fixed by the national legislation on that
supplement are exceeded, an insured person who has worked exclu-
sively in the Member State concerned cannot lay claim to such a
supplement.

(1) OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-71/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Supremo in Administración del Estado v
Xunta de Galicia (1)

(State aid — Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article
88(3) EC) — Scheme of aid to shipbuilding and ship conver-
sion falling outside the scope of Directive 90/684/EEC —
Failure to give prior notification — Article 92(1) of the EC
Treaty (now Article 87(1) EC) — Concept of State aid —
Effect on trade between Member States)

(2005/C 217/30)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Estado and Xunta de Galicia — the Court (Third Chamber),
composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. P. Puisso-
chet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur),
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave
a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it ruled:

scope

fall within the

The Commission of the European Communities must be given prior
notification, pursuant to Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article
88(3) EC), of a scheme of aid to shipbuilding and ship conversion
such as that set up by Decree No 217/1994 of 23 June 1994,
which does not
of Council Directive
90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on aid to shipbuilding, if it is
established that the scheme is capable of itself of giving rise to the
grant of State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC).
is for the
national court, in cases of infringement of Article 93(3) of the EC
in accordance with its
Treaty, to draw the necessary consequences,
national law, with regard to both the validity of the acts giving effect
to the aid and the recovery of financial support granted in disregard
of that provision.

It

(1) OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-107/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Supremo in Comité Andaluz de Agricultura
Ecológica v Administración General del Estado, Comité
Aragonés de Agricultura Ecológica (1)

(Community rules on organic production of agricultural
products and indications referring thereto on agricultural
products and foodstuffs — National legislation authorising
the use of the term ‘bio’ in respect of products which have
not been organically produced)

(2005/C 217/31)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

In Case C-71/04: REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain), made by
decision of 22 December 2003, received at the Court on 16
February 2004, in the proceedings between Administración del

In Case C-107/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain), made by
decision of 1 December 2003, received at the Court on 1
March 2004, in the proceedings between Comité Andaluz de
Agricultura Ecológica and Administración General del Estado,
Comité Aragonés de Agricultura Ecológica — the Court (First