Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  29 September 2005  in Case C-251/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to satisfy the requirements of Annex I to Directive 80/778/EEC — Article 7(6) — Water intended for human consumption)
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, drinking water, human nutrition, public health, quality of the environment

C 296/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.11.2005

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt:

— in the case of the Flemish Region, within the time-limit set by
the reasoned opinion of 23 November 1998, the measures
needed for the full and correct implementation of Article 4 of
Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991
concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by
nitrates from agricultural sources and, within the time-limit
set by the reasoned opinion of 9 November 1999,
the
measures needed for the full and correct implementation of
Articles 3(1) and (2), 5 and 10 thereof, and

— in the case of the Walloon Region, within the time-limit set
by the reasoned opinion of 9 November 1999, the measures
needed for the full and correct implementation of Articles 3(1)
and (2) and 5 of that directive,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

2. Declares that,

to the extent

the
Commission puts forward charges other than those set out in the
reasoned opinions, its action is inadmissible;

in its complaints,

to which,

3. Declares that the part of the complaint alleging infringement of
Article 5 of Directive 91/676,
in conjunction with Annex III
thereto, to the effect that the Flemish Region action programme is
only partly applicable in that region, in particular as regards the
maximum quantities of
livestock effluents that may be applied
each year in vulnerable zones, is unfounded;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 19.07.2003.

Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C.
Jurgensen-Mercier),
supported by: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) —
action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations,
(Third Chamber),
brought on 6 June 2003 — the Court
composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puisso-
chet, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus,
Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Regis-
trar, gave a judgment on 6 October 2005, in which it:

1. Declares that, by introducing a special rule limiting the deduct-
ibility of value added tax on the purchase of capital goods where
they were financed by subsidies, the French Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Community law,
in particular under
Articles 17 and 19 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;

2. Orders the Republic of France to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 171, of 19.07.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 29 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 6 October 2005

in Case C-243/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v French Republic (1)

(VAT — Deduction of input tax paid — Capital goods
financed by subsidies)

(2005/C 296/03)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-243/03: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: E. Traversa, assisted by N. Coutrelis, avocat) v French

in Case C-251/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Portuguese Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
satisfy the requirements of Annex I to Directive 80/778/EEC
— Article 7(6) — Water intended for human consumption)

(2005/C 296/04)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

In Case C-251/03: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: A. Caeiros and G. Valero Jordana) v Portuguese
Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and M. Lois) — action brought
on 11 June 2003 under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil
Treaty obligations — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of
A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puisso-
chet (Rapporteur), U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C.
Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 29 September 2005, in which it:

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