Case C-385/05: 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 Française Démocratique du Travail (CFDT), Confédération Française de l'Encadrement C.G.C. (C.F.E.-C.G.C.), Confédération 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
Date: 2005-12-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, labour law, size of business, worker consultation, worker information, workers' representation

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?

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/11

2. To what extent may Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 (2)
be interpreted as authorising an arrangement with the effect
that some establishments normally employing more than 20
employees will be relieved, albeit temporarily, of the obliga-
tion to create
representation of
employees because of rules for the calculation of staff
numbers that exclude taking account of some categories of
employees for the application of the provisions organising
that representation?

a structure

the

for

(1) Directive 2002/14/EC of

the European Parliament and of

the
Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for
informing and consulting employees in the European Community –
Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the
Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29)
(2) Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation
of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies
(OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16)

Action brought on 27 October 2005 by the Commission
the Hellenic
of

against

the European Communities
Republic

(Case C-390/05)

(2005/C 330/21)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 October
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by U. Wölker, legal adviser and M. Konstantinidis, of the
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Article 16(5), (6) and 17(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 2037/2000 (1) of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the
ozone layer;

2. Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant considers that the Hellenic Republic failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 16(5) of Regulation (EC) No
2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer
because it did not take the measures necessary for determining
minimum qualification requirements for the personnel charged
with the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of
controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer.

The applicant
likewise considers that the Hellenic Republic
infringed its obligations under Article 16(6) of Regulation No
2037/2000 given that the Hellenic Republic did not submit a
report to the Commission in accordance with the requirements
of that provision, concerning the facilities available and the
quantities of used controlled substances recovered, recycled,
reclaimed or destroyed.

Finally, the applicant alleges an infringement by the Hellenic
Republic of Article 17(1) of the abovementioned regulation
because it did not adopt, as provided for thereunder, all practic-
able measures to arrange for annual checks of leakages from
fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than
3 kg.

(1) OJ L 244 of 29.09.2000, p. 1

Removal from the register of Case C-102/03 (1)

(2005/C 330/22)

(Language of the case: Italian)

By order of 6 September 2005, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-102/03 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling Tribunale di Brindisi): in criminal proceedings against v
Gianfranco Casale, Giuseppe Eugenio Caroli.

(1) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.

Removal from the register of Case C-389/04 (1)

(2005/C 330/23)

Language of the case: French

By order of 5 October 2005, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-389/04: Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities v French Republic.

(1) OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.