Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  6 October 2005  in Case C-276/03 P: Scott SA v Commission of the European Communities and French Republic (Appeal — Unlawful State aid — Temporal application of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Decision on incompatibility and recovery of aid — Limitation period — Interruption — Need to inform the beneficiary of the aid of an interrupting action)
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, State aid, action for annulment (EU)

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/3

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt

the measures necessary to
comply with the requirements of Annex I to Council Directive
80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water
intended for human consumption, the Portuguese Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7(6) and 19 of that
directive;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 6 October 2005

in Case C-276/03 P: Scott SA v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities and French Republic (1)

(Appeal — Unlawful State aid — Temporal application of
Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Decision on incompatibility
and recovery of aid — Limitation period — Interruption —
Need to inform the beneficiary of the aid of an interrupting
action)

(2005/C 296/05)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-276/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of
the Court of Justice, brought on 24 June 2003 by Scott SA,
established in Saint-Cloud (France) (represented by J. Lever QC,
G. Peretz, Barrister, A. Nourry, R. Griffith and M. Papadakis,
Solicitors), the other parties to the proceedings being: Commis-
sion of the European Communities (Agent: J. Flett), and the
French Republic — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P.
Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, K.
Schiemann, E. Juhász and E. Levits, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advo-
cate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator,
for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 October 2005, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Scott SA and the Commission of the European Commu-

nities to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 200 of 23. 08.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 6 October 2005

in Case C-291/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester, MyTravel plc v
Commissioners of Customs & Excise (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Scheme for travel agents — Package
tours — Services bought in from third parties and in-house
services — Method of calculating the tax)

(2005/C 296/06)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-291/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester
(United Kingdom), made by decision of 30 June 2003, received
at the Court on 4 July 2003,
in the proceedings between
MyTravel plc and Commissioners of Customs & Excise — the
Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the
Chamber, A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, S. von
Bahr and U. Lõhmus, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.
Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 6 October 2005, the operative part of which is as
follows:

1. A travel agent or a tour operator who has completed his value
added tax return for a tax period using the method laid down by
the national rules which transpose into domestic law 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
may recalculate his value added tax liability in accordance with the
method held by the Court to comply with Community law, under
the conditions laid down by national law, which have to observe
the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

2. Article 26 of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as
meaning that a travel agent or tour operator who, in return for a
package price, supplies to a traveller services bought in from third
parties and in-house services must, in principle, identify the part of
the package corresponding to his in-house services on the basis of
their market value where that value can be established. In such a
case, a taxable person may use the criterion of actual costs only if
he proves that this criterion accurately reflects the actual structure
of the package. Application of the criterion of market value is not
subject to the condition that it must be simpler than application of
the actual cost method or to the condition that it must produce a
value added tax liability identical or close to that which would
result from using the actual cost method. Accordingly:

— a travel agent or tour operator may not use the market value

method at his own discretion and