Case C-401/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of  11 November 2005  in VDP Dental Laboratory N.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2006-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, health expenditure, interpretation of the law, tax exemption, tax harmonisation, tax relief

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden by order of that court of 11 November
2005 in B.A.S. Trucks B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-400/05)

(2006/C 36/37)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

abovementioned supplies from VAT must attach the right to
deduct to those supplies in so far as (in particular under the
first indent of Article 28b.B(1) of the Sixth Directive) they
take place in another Member State which has excluded
them from exemption pursuant to Article 28(3)(a) of the
Sixth Directive,
in conjunction with Item 2 of Annex E
thereto?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
(Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 11 November 2005,
received at the Court Registry on 16 November 2005, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings between B.A.S. Trucks
B.V. and the Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following
question:

Does the fact that dumpers are,
in view of their distinctive
characteristics, also designed for use on paved, public roads
preclude their classification under subheading 8704 10 of the
Combined Nomenclature?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
that court of 11
der Nederlanden by judgment of
November 2005 in VDP Dental Laboratory N.V. v Staatsse-
cretaris van Financiën

(Case C-401/05)

(2006/C 36/38)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der Neder-
landen (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 11 November
2005, received at the Court Registry on 16 November 2005,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between VDP
Dental Laboratory N.V. and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on
the following questions:

1. Is Article 13.A[(1)](e) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be inter-
preted as meaning that dental prostheses supplied by a
taxable person who contracts out the manufacture thereof
to a dental technician are covered by the notion of dental
prostheses supplied by dental technicians?

2. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative:

Appeal brought on 17 November 2005 by Yassin Abdullah
Kadi against the judgment made on 21 September 2005 by
the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-
315/01 between Yassin Abdullah Kadi and the Council of
the European Union and the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-402/05 P)

(2006/C 36/39)

(Language of the case: English)

An appeal against the judgment made on 21 September 2005
by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-315/
01 between Yassin Abdullah Kadi and the Council of the Euro-
pean Union and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of
the European
Communities on 17 November 2005 by Yassin Abdullah Kadi,
residing in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia), represented by Ian Brownlie
CBE QC, David Anderson QC, Pushpinder Saini, Barrister and
Guy Martin, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

Justice of

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

a) set aside,
Instance.

in whole,

the decision of

the Court of First

b) make a declaration that Council Regulation (EC) No

881/2002 of 27 May 2002 (1) is void and a nullity.

Is Article 17(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State which has exempted the

c) order that the Council and/or Commission pay the Appel-
lant's costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the
Court of First Instance.