Case C-217/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  2 May 2006  — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 — European Network and Information Security Agency — Choice of legal basis)
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EU law - national law, European Parliament, United Kingdom, action for annulment (EU), approximation of laws, data protection, information network, transmission network

C 143/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.6.2006

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
hallinto-oikeus) — Uudenkaupungin kaupunki

was not eligible for deduction and were then used in activity,
subject to value added tax during the adjustment period.

(Case C-184/04) (1)

(VAT — Deduction of input tax — Capital goods — Immo-
vable property — Adjustment of deductions)

(2006/C 143/15)

Language of the case: Finnish

3. The second subparagraph of Article 13(C) of Sixth Directive
77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State
which gives its taxable persons the right to opt for taxation of the
letting of a property is not permitted by that provision to exclude
deduction of value added tax on immovable property investments
made before that right of option is exercised, where the application
to exercise that option has not been made within six months of
the property being brought into use.

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uudenkaupungin kaupunki

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation
of the second subparagraph of Article 13(C), Article 17(6) and
Article 20 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) —
Deduction of input tax on immovable capital goods used in
connection with transactions for which the taxable person
subsequently opts to be taxable — National legislation under
which the right to deduct is subject to exercising the right of
option for taxation within six months from the bringing into
use of the property

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 20 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, must be interpreted as meaning that,
subject
it requires
Member States to make provision for adjustment of deductions of
value added tax on capital goods.

to the provisions of Article 20(5)

thereof,

to opt

for taxation of

4. Article 17(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State which gives its taxable persons the
the letting of a property is not
right
permitted by that provision to exclude deduction of value added
tax on immovable property investments made before that right of
option is exercised, where the application to exercise that option
the property being
has not been made within six months of
brought into use.

(1) OJ C 156 of 12.06.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2006 —
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v
European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-217/04) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 — European Network and
Information Security Agency — Choice of legal basis)

(2006/C 143/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

2. Article 20 of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as
meaning that the adjustment provided for therein is also applicable
where the capital goods were first used in non-taxable activity that

Applicants: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (represented by: M. Bethell, Agent, and by Lord Gold-
smith, N. Paines and T. Ward, lawyers)

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/9

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: K. Bradley
and U. Rösslein, Agents); Council of
the European Union
(represented by: M. Veiga and A. Lopes Sabino, Agents)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EMAG Handel Eder OHG

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (repre-
sented by: T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents);
Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F.
Benyon and M. Shotter, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 establishing
the European Network and Information Security Agency (OJ
2004 L 77, p. 1) — Choice of legal basis

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof
— Interpretation of Article 8(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC:
Sixth Council Directive 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 assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Place of supply in triangular
operations or chain transactions — Purchase of goods by an
undertaking established in a Member State from another under-
taking established in the same Member State which is supplied
by undertakings established in other Member States, where the
goods are dispatched by the suppliers directly to the purchasing
undertaking acquiring the goods

2. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Finland and the Commission of the Euro-

pean Communities to bear their own costs.

Operative part of the judgment

(1) OJ C 201, 7.8.2004.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof) — EMAG Handel Eder OHG v Finanzlandes-
direktion für Kärnten

(Case C-245/04) (1)

(Preliminary references — Sixth VAT Directive — Article
8(1)(a) and (b), the first subparagraph of Article 28a(1)(a),
Article 28b(A)(1) and the first subparagraph of Article
28c(A)(a) — Intra-Community dispatch or transport of
goods — Supplies — Intra-Community acquisition of goods
— Chain transactions — Place of transaction)

(2006/C 143/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)

1. Where two successive supplies of

the same goods, effected for
consideration between taxable persons acting as such, gives rise to
a single intra-Community dispatch or a single intra-Community
transport of those goods, that dispatch or transport can be ascribed
to only one of the two supplies, which alone will be exempted
from tax under the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) of the
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turn-
over taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis
of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10
April 1995.

That interpretation holds good regardless of which taxable person
— the first vendor, the intermediary acquiring the goods or the
second person acquiring the goods — has the right to dispose of
the goods during that dispatch or transport.

2. Only the place of the supply which gives rise to dispatch or intra-
Community transport of goods is determined in accordance with
Article 8(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC, as amended
by Directive 95/7; that place is deemed to be in the Member State
of the departure of that dispatch or transport. The place of the
other supply is determined in accordance with Article 8(1)(b) of
that directive; that place is deemed to be either in the Member
State of departure or in the Member State of arrival of
that
dispatch or transport, according to whether that supply is the first
or the second of the two successive supplies.

(1) OJ C 251, 9.1.2004.