Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  6 December 2005  in Case C-66/04: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Foods — Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 — Smoke flavourings — Choice of legal basis)
Date: 2006-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), consumer protection, flavouring, food additive, foodstuff, foodstuffs legislation, health policy, smoked product

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/9

1. Declares that, by failing to comply with the obligations to verify
the compliance of cost accounting systems by a competent indepen-
dent body and to publish a statement of compliance for the years
in accordance with Article 7(5) of Directive
1998 and 1999,
97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30
June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard
to ensuring universal service and interoperability through applica-
tion of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) and by
failing to apply correctly in practice the measures relating to the
verification of the compliance of the cost accounting system by the
national regulatory authority or another competent body, indepen-
dent of the telecommunications organisation and approved by that
regulatory authority, for the year 2000, in accordance with the
provisions of Article 18(1) and (2) of Directive 98/10/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on
the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice tele-
phony and on universal service for telecommunications in a compe-
titive environment, as maintained by Article 27 of Directive
2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7
March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic
communications networks and services (‘the Framework Directive’),
read in conjunction with Article 16 of Directive 2002/22/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on
universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communica-
tions networks and services (‘the Universal Service Directive’), the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
under those provisions;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 71 of 23.03.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 15 December 2005

in Case C-63/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery
Division Centralan Property Ltd v Commissioners of
Customs & Excise (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 20(3) — Capital goods —
Deduction of input tax — Adjustments of deductions —
Immovable property — Disposal by means of two connected
transactions, one exempt, the other taxable — Apportion-
ment)

(2006/C 36/15)

(Language of the case: English)

Wales, Chancery Division (United Kingdom), made by decision
of 21 February 2003, received at the Court on 13 February
2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between
Centralan Property Ltd and Commissioners of Customs &
Excise — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas,
President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, U.
Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur),
J. Kokott,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 December 2005, the opera-
tive part of which is as follows:

Judges;

Article 20(3) 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, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a 999-year
lease over capital goods is granted to a person against the payment of
a substantial premium and the freehold reversion in that property is
transferred three days later to another person at a much lower price,
and where those two transactions

— are inextricably linked, and

— consist of a first transaction which is exempt and a second trans-

action which is taxable,

— and if those transactions, owing to the transfer of the right to
dispose of those capital goods as owner, constitute supplies within
the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive,

the goods in question are regarded, until the expiry of the period of
adjustment, as having been used in business activities which are
presumed to be partly taxable and partly exempt in proportion to the
respective values of the two transactions.

(1) OJ C 85, 3.04.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 6 December 2005

in Case C-66/04: United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the
European Union (1)

(Foods — Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 — Smoke flavour-
ings — Choice of legal basis)

(2006/C 36/16)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-63/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and

In Case C-66/04: Action for annulment under Article 230 EC,
brought on 11 February 2004, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: R. Caudwell and M.

C 36/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.2.2006

Bethell, assisted by Lord Goldsmith QC, N. Paines QC and T.
Ward, Barrister) v European Parliament (Agents: K. Bradley and
M. Moore), Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims, E.
Karlsson and F. Ruggeri Laderchi), supported by: Commission
J.-P. Keppenne, N.
of
the European Communities (Agents:
Yerrell and M. Shotter) — the Court
(Grand Chamber),
composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, A. Rosas and K. Schiemann, Presidents of Chambers, S.
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta
von Bahr,
(Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, A. Borg Barthet
and M. Ilešič, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; K. Sztranc,
Administrator,
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6
December 2005, in which it:

for

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its

own costs.

(1) OJ C 94 of 17. 04. 2004.

gave a judgment on 24 November 2005, the operative part of
which is as follows:

Cheese exported in 1990 which, by its nature, is intended for proces-
sing in a third country may be covered by an export refund under
Article 17(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27
June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and
milk products, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No
3904/87 of 22 December 1987, provided that it is classified, taking
account of its type and composition, under one of the product codes in
the annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1706/89 of 15 June
1989 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products, as defined
by the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds annexed
to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3445/89 of 15 November
1989 establishing the full version, applicable from 1 January 1990,
of the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds.

(1) OJ C 118 of 30. 04. 2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 22 November 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 24 November 2005

in Case C-136/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) Deutsches Milch-Kontor
GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)

(Export refunds — Regulations (EEC) Nos 804/68, 1706/89
and 3445/89 — Cheeses intended for processing in a third
country)

(2006/C 36/17)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-136/04: REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by
decision of 3 February 2004, received at the Court on 15
March 2004,
in the proceedings pending before that court
between Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH and Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Jonas — the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of J.
Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and R.
Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur),
Judges; M. Poiares Maduro,
Advocate General, B. Fülöp, Administrator, for the Registrar,

in Case C-144/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arbeitsgericht München Werner Mangold v Rüdiger
Helm (1)

(Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 2, 5 and 8 of the Frame-
work Agreement
fixed-term work — Directive
2000/78/EC — Article 6 — Equal treatment as regards
employment and occupation — Age discrimination)

on

(2006/C 36/18)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-144/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Arbeitsgericht München (Germany),
made by decision of 26 February 2004, received at the Court
on 17 March 2004,
in the proceedings pending before that
court between Werner Mangold and Rüdiger Helm — the
Court: (Grand Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the
First Chamber, acting as President, C.W.A. Timmermans, A.
Rosas and K. Schiemann, Presidents of Chambers, and R.
Schintgen (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R.
Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg
Barthet and M. Ilešič, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General, K.
Sztranc, Administrator, has given a judgment on 22 November
2005, the operative part of which is as follows: