Case C-384/05: 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 Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, formerly Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries)
Date: 2005-12-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dairy farm, farm development plan, interpretation of the law, milk, regulation of agricultural production

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?