Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-433/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Negotiation, conclusion, ratification and implementation of bilateral agreements by a Member State — Transport of goods or passengers by inland waterway — External competence of the Community — Article 10 EC — Regulations (EEC) No 3921/91 and (EC) No 1356/96)
Date: 2005-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, inland waterway shipping, intra-EU transport

C 217/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2005

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

would be entitled to do so if his former spouse were resident in
Germany.

(1) OJ C 264 of 01.11.2003.

(1) OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 12 July 2005

(Second Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-403/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Egon Schempp v Finanzamt
the Bundesfinanzhof

München V (1)

in Case C-433/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Citizenship of the Union — Articles 12 EC and 18 EC —
Income tax — Deductibility from taxable income of mainte-
nance paid by a taxpayer resident in Germany to his former
spouse resident in Austria — Proof of taxation of the mainte-
nance payments in that Member State)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Nego-
tiation, conclusion, ratification and implementation of bilat-
eral agreements by a Member State — Transport of goods or
passengers by inland waterway — External competence of the
Community — Article 10 EC — Regulations (EEC) No 3921/
91 and (EC) No 1356/96)

(2005/C 217/22)

(2005/C 217/23)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: German)

received at

In Case C-403/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by
the Court on 29
decision of 22 July 2003,
September 2003, in the proceedings between Egon Schempp
and Finanzamt München V — the Court (Grand Chamber),
composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmer-
mans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P.
Puissochet, A. La Pergola, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, J. Klučka,
U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges;
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
judgment on 12 July 2005, in which it ruled:

In Case C-433/03, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: C. Schmidt, W. Wils and A. Manville) v Federal
Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, and G. Schohe,
Lawyer) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obli-
gations, brought on 10 October 2003 — the Court (Second
Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the
Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.
Makarczyk and P. Kūris, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which
it:

The first paragraph of Article 12 EC and Article 18(1) EC must be
interpreted as not precluding a taxpayer resident in Germany from
being unable, under national legislation such as that at issue in the
main proceedings, to deduct from his taxable income in that Member
State the maintenance paid to his former spouse resident in another
Member State in which the maintenance is not taxable, where he

1. Declares that, by ratifying and implementing:

— the agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany and the Government of Romania on inland
waterway transport, signed in Bonn on 22 October 1991,

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/13

— the agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany and the Government of the Republic of Poland on
inland waterway transport, signed in Warsaw on 8 November
1991, and

— the agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany and the Government of Ukraine on inland
waterway transport, signed in Bonn on 14 July 1992,

without consulting or cooperating with the Commission of the
European Communities,
the Federal Republic of Germany has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC;

Article 6(2) and Article 17(2) and (6) 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, as amended by Council
Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as
precluding national
legislation such as that at issue in the main
proceedings, adopted before that directive came into force, which does
not make it possible for a taxable person to allocate capital goods
used in part for business purposes and in part for purposes other than
those of his business wholly to his business and, where appropriate, to
deduct immediately and in full the value added tax due on the acquisi-
tion of those goods.

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

(1) OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the

Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-434/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in P. Charles and T.S.
Charles-Tijmens v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

(Sixth VAT directive — Deduction of input tax paid —
Immovable property used in part for the business and in part
for private purposes)

(2005/C 217/24)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

in Case C-435/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen in British American
Tobacco International Ltd, Newman Shipping & Agency
Company NV v Belgian State (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2 and 27(5) — Turnover
tax — Scope — Chargeable event and taxable amount —
Supply of goods for consideration — Theft of goods from a
tax warehouse)

(2005/C 217/25)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-434/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nether-
lands), made by decision of 10 October 2003, received at the
in the proceedings between P.
Court on 13 October 2003,
Charles and T.S. Charles-Tijmens and Staatssecretaris van
Financiën — the Court
(Grand Chamber), composed of V.
Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, R.
Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents
of Chambers, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris, E. Juhász and G. Arestis, Judges; F.G.
Jacobs, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:

In Case C-435/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen
(Belgium), made by decision of 7 October 2003, received at the
Court on 14 October 2003, in the proceedings between British
American Tobacco International Ltd, Newman Shipping &
Agency Company NV and Belgian State — the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A.
Borg Barthet, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and J.
Malenovský, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it
ruled: