Case C-378/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) by judgment of that court of  9 September 2005  in Samotor SPRL v Belgian State
Date: 2005-12-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, contract, interpretation of the law, tax evasion, tax relief

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/9

Pleas in law and main arguments

1992 (3) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
2311/96 of 2 December 1996 (4):

The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly
found that Bart Nijs's application was inadmissible, while he
maintains that the pre-litigation procedure, and more specifi-
cally Article 90(2) of the Statute, was complied with.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesver-
waltungsgericht by order of that court of 23 August 2005
in Erhard Geuting v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer
Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-375/05)

(2005/C 330/17)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
of 23 August 2005, received at the Court Registry on 12
October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Erhard Geuting and the Direktor der Landwirtschafts-
kammer Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:

1. For the purposes of Article 4a(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No
805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 (1) as amended by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992 (2):

(a) Is an in-calf heifer only a suckler cow within the
meaning of
it
replaces a suckler cow for which an application for a
premium has been made?

the first section of

the regulation if

(b) Is an in-calf heifer also a suckler cow within the
meaning of the first section of the regulation if, in the
previous marketing year, it replaced a suckler cow for
which an application for a premium had been made and
was regarded as eligible for a premium?

(c) Is an in-calf heifer for which application for a premium
has been made to be regarded at any rate as eligible for
a premium if it calves before the end of the period for
lodging applications?

2. The following questions are also referred to the Court of
Justice of
the European Communities for a preliminary
ruling on the interpretation of Article 33(2) and (4) of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December

(a) Has a producer not made use of premium rights during a
marketing year if he has applied for a premium but his
application has been rejected
animals
concerned were not eligible for premiums?

because

the

Is this also the case if there is no indication of an improper
application having been made?

Would this be compatible with the Community principle of
proportionality?

(b) Should Article 33(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 be
interpreted as meaning that,
in an instance such as this,
premium rights are maintained because it constitutes a
(duly justified) exceptional case?

(c) Should premium rights that are withdrawn from a producer
under Article 33(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92
because he made use of more than 70 % but less than 90 %
of his premium rights in the 1998 marketing year be
granted to that producer on a preferential basis on the
expiry of the two-year exclusion period?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187.
(2) OJ L 215, p. 49.
(3) OJ L 391, p. 20.
(4) OJ L 313, p. 9.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassa-
tion (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 9 September
2005 in Samotor SPRL v Belgian State

(Case C-378/05)

(2005/C 330/18)

(Language of the case: French)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of
the Cour de cassation
(Belgium) of 9 September 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 14 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings between Samotor SPRL and the Belgian State on the
following questions:

C 330/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.12.2005

1. Where the recipient of a supply of goods is a taxable person
who has entered into a contract
in good faith without
knowledge of a fraud committed by the seller, does the prin-
ciple of fiscal neutrality in respect of value added tax mean
that the fact that the contract of sale is void, by reason of a
rule of domestic civil law which renders the contract incur-
ably void as contrary to public policy on the ground of
illegal basis of the contract attributable to the seller, cannot
cause that taxable person to lose his right to deduct the tax?

2. Is the answer different where the contract is incurably void

for fraudulent evasion of VAT itself?

3. Is the answer different where the illegal basis of the contract
of sale, which makes it incurably void under domestic law,
is fraudulent evasion of value added tax of which both
contracting parties had knowledge?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden by order of that court of 14 October
2005 in Johan Piek v Netherlands State (Ministry of Agri-
culture, Nature and Food Quality, formerly Ministry of
Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries)

(Case C-384/05)

(2005/C 330/19)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
of 14 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 24
October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Johan Piek and Netherlands State (Ministry of Agri-
culture, Nature and Food Quality, formerly Ministry of Agri-
culture, Nature Management and Fisheries) on the following
question:

1. Does Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 (1)
of 31 March 1984 preclude a national rule laid down in
implementation of that provision which is framed in such a
way that producers who have incurred investment obliga-
tions, regardless of whether or not that occurred under a
development plan, may obtain a special reference quantity
only if they incurred those investment obligations after 1
September 1981 but before 1 March 1984?

2. If Question 1 cannot be answered in the round, which
criteria determine whether the temporal limitation referred
to in Question 1 is consistent with Regulation No 857/84?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c
of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products
sector. OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État
(France) by decision of that court of 19 October 2005 in
Confédération Générale du Travail, Confédération Fran-
çaise Démocratique du Travail
(CFDT), Confédération
Française de l'Encadrement C.G.C. (C.F.E.-C.G.C.), Confé-
dération Française des Travailleurs Chrétiens (C.F.T.C.) and
Confédération Générale du Travail — Force Ouvrière v
Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Emploi, de la Cohésion
sociale et du Logement

(Case C-385/05)

(2005/C 330/20)

(Language of the case: French)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the Conseil d'Etat (France) of
19 October 2005, received at
the Court Registry on 24
October 2005,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Confédération Générale du Travail, Confédération
Française Démocratique du Travail (CFDT), Confédération Fran-
(C.F.E.-C.G.C.), Confédération
çaise de l'Encadrement C.G.C.
Française des Travailleurs Chrétiens (C.F.T.C.), Confédération
Générale du Travail — Force Ouvrière and Premier ministre,
Ministre de l'Emploi, de la Cohésion sociale et du Logement on
the following questions:

1. In view of the purpose of Directive 2002/14/EC of 11
March 2002, (1) which, as set out in Article 1(1) thereof, is
framework setting out minimum
to establish a general
requirements for the right to information and consultation
of employees in undertakings or establishments within the
Community, must the transfer to the Member States of
responsibility for determining the method for calculating
the thresholds of employees employed, which is set out in
that directive, be regarded as allowing those States to defer
taking account of certain categories of employees for the
application of those thresholds?