Case C-168/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi (Regional Administrative Court, Łódź) lodged on  29 March 2006  — Ceramika Paradyż sp.z oo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, tax evasion, tax harmonisation, tax law

C 143/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.6.2006

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Supremo lodged on 27 March 2006 — International Mail
Spain SL v Administración del Estado — Correos

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-162/06)

(2006/C 143/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Applicant: Ceramika Paradyż sp.z oo

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: International Mail Spain SL

Defendant: Administración del Estado — Correos

Questions referred

Question referred

[prior

‘Does Article 7(2)
to its amendment by Directive
2002/39/EC] of Directive 97/67/EC (1) of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common
rules for the development of the internal market of Community
postal services and the improvement of quality of service,
which authorises Member States to include cross-border mail in
the reserved postal services, allow them to establish that reser-
vation only insofar as they are able to prove that, without it,
the economic equilibrium of the universal service provider is at
risk, or, instead, does it also allow them to retain it for other
reasons, among them reasons of expediency, relating to the
overall situation in the postal sector, including the degree of
liberalisation in that sector at
the time the reservation is
decided?’

1. Does the second paragraph of Article 2 of First Council
Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisa-
tion of legislation of Member States concerning turnover
taxes (1), in conjunction with Articles 2, 10(1)(a) and 10(2)
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 (2), rule out the possibility of
Member States imposing an obligation on a taxable person
for VAT purposes to pay an additional tax liability equiva-
lent to 30 % of the amount of the understatement of tax
liability or 30 % of the amount of the overstatement by the
taxable person in respect of the tax difference to be repaid
or the input tax to be repaid or of the overstatement of the
excess of the input tax over that due, to be carried over to
the following accounting period, in the event that it is estab-
lished that the taxable person for VAT purposes:

(1) OJ L 15, 21.01.1998, p. 14.

(a) indicated in the tax declaration submitted an amount of

tax liability which is less than the amount due, or

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki
Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi
(Regional Administrative
lodged on 29 March 2006 — Ceramika
Court, Łódź)

Paradyż sp.z oo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

(Case C-168/06)

(2006/C 143/44)

Language of the case: Polish

(b) indicated in the tax declaration an amount of the tax
difference to be repaid or the input tax to be repaid
which is greater than the amount due, or

(c) indicated in the tax declaration a difference between the
amount of input tax and the amount of tax due, to be
carried over to the following month, or

(d) included in the tax declaration and received an amount
of tax difference to be repaid or an amount of input tax
to be repaid and should have indicated the amount of
tax liability to be paid to the tax office, or

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi

of the tax liability?

(e) failed to submit a tax declaration or to pay the amount

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/25

2. Can ‘special measures’ within the terms of Article 27(1) of
the Sixth Council Directive consist, having regard to their
character and purpose, in the possibility of imposing on a
taxable person for VAT purposes an additional tax liability
fixed by a decision of the tax authority where it is objec-
tively established that the taxable person has declared an
understated amount of tax liability or an overstated amount
of the tax difference to be repaid or an overstated amount
of input tax to be repaid?

(1) OJ 71, 14.4.1967, p. 1301.
(2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Napoli lodged on 30 March 2006 — Giuseppina Montoro
and Michelangelo Liguori v Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
Center

(Case C-170/06)

(2006/C 143/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Giuseppina Montoro and Michelangelo Liguori

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
Tributaria Regionale di Genova lodged on 3 April 2006 —
Agrover S.r.l. v Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale
di Genova

(Case C-173/06)

(2006/C 143/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrover S.r.l.

Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova

Questions referred

1. Can Article 216 of the Community Customs Code (Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992) apply where
a Community product (rice) previously exported under the
inward processing procedure with an EUR1 certificate to a
non-member country (with which an agreement on prefer-
ential tariff treatment is in force) gives rise to the application
of customs duties at the time of the subsequent compen-
sating reimportation of the same (or equivalent) goods from
a so-called ‘non-agreement’ non-member country?

2. If duties under Article 216 of the Community Customs
Code are not levied at the time of the compensating impor-
tation, may the customs authorities seek to recover them a
posteriori, or does the exemption referred to in Article 220
of the Community Customs Code apply?

Defendant: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Action brought on 4 April 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

Question referred

Interpretation of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention of
1968 requested in order to establish whether or not, leaving
aside the hypothesis of multiple instances of damage, the test
of the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred
can serve to found jurisdiction also for the courts of the place
where the person injured became aware of the existence of
damage attributable to an act that took place in another State.

(Case C-177/06)

(2006/C 143/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, acting as Agent(s))

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain