Case C-384/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  11 May 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners of Customs & Excise, Attorney General v Federation of Technological Industries and Others (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 21(3) and 22(8) — National measures to combat fraud — Joint and several liability for the payment of VAT — Provision of security for VAT payable by another trader)
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, VAT, basis of tax assessment, fraud, interpretation of the law, tax system

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/7

Where the delay arising from such waiting lists appears to exceed
an acceptable time having regard to an objective medical assess-
ment of the abovementioned circumstances, the competent institu-
tion may not refuse the authorisation sought on the grounds of
the existence of those waiting lists, an alleged distortion of the
normal order of priorities linked to the relative urgency of the cases
to be treated, the fact that the hospital treatment provided under
the national system in question is free of charge, the obligation to
make available specific funds to reimburse the cost of treatment to
be provided in another Member State and/or a comparison
between the cost of that treatment and that of equivalent treatment
in the competent Member State.

objective medical assessment of the condition and clinical require-
ments of the patient concerned does not contravene Article 152(5)
EC.

(1) OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

treatment,

3. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that where the
legislation of the competent Member State provides that hospital
treatment provided under the national health service is to be free of
charge, and where the legislation of the Member State in which a
patient
registered with that service was or should have been
authorised to receive hospital treatment at the expense of that
service does not provide for the reimbursement in full of the cost of
that
institution must reimburse that
patient the difference (if any) between the cost, objectively quanti-
fied, of equivalent treatment in a hospital covered by the service in
the treatment
question up to the total amount
provided in the host Member State and the amount which the
institution of the latter Member State is required to reimburse
under Article 22(1)(c)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended
and updated by Regulation No 118/97, on behalf of the compe-
tent institution pursuant to the legislation of that Member State.

the competent

invoiced for

Article 22(1)(c)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted
as meaning that the right which it confers on the patient concerned
relates exclusively to the expenditure connected with the healthcare
received by that patient in the host Member State, namely, in the
treatment, the cost of medical services strictly
case of hospital
defined and the inextricably linked costs relating to his stay in the
hospital.

Article 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that a patient who
was authorised to go to another Member State to receive there
hospital treatment or who received a refusal to authorise subse-
quently held to be unfounded is entitled to seek from the competent
institution reimbursement of the ancillary costs associated with
that cross-border movement for medical purposes provided that the
the competent Member State imposes a corre-
legislation of
sponding obligation on the national system to reimburse in respect
of treatment provided in a local hospital covered by that system.

4. The obligation of the competent institution under both Article 22
of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regu-
lation No 118/97, and Article 49 EC to authorise a patient
registered with a national health service to obtain, at that institu-
tion's expense, hospital treatment in another Member State where
the waiting time exceeds an acceptable period having regard to an

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 May 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Appeal (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commis-
sioners of Customs & Excise, Attorney General v Federa-
tion of Technological Industries and Others

(Case C-384/04) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 21(3) and 22(8) —
National measures to combat fraud — Joint and several liabi-
lity for the payment of VAT — Provision of security for VAT
payable by another trader)

(2006/C 165/12)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Commissioners of Customs & Excise, Attorney
General

Respondents: Federation of Technological Industries and Others

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (Civil
Division) — Interpretation 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) — Scope of Article 21(3) whereby Member
States may provide that a person other than the taxpayer is
jointly and severally liable for payment of the tax — ‘Carousel’
type frauds

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 21(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 Directives
2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000 and 2001/115/EC of 20
December 2001, is to be interpreted as allowing a Member State
to enact legislation, such as that in issue in the main proceedings,
which provides that a taxable person, to whom a supply of goods

C 165/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2006

or services has been made and who knew, or had reasonable
grounds to suspect,
the value added tax
that some or all of
payable in respect of that supply, or of any previous or subsequent
supply, would go unpaid, may be made jointly and severally liable,
with the person who is liable, for payment of that tax. Such legis-
lation must, however, comply with the general principles of law
which form part of the Community legal order and which include,
in particular, the principles of legal certainty and proportionality.

is

2. Article 22(8) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Direc-
tives 2000/65 and 2001/115,
to be interpreted as not
allowing a Member State to enact either legislation, such as that
in issue in the main proceedings, which provides that a taxable
person, to whom a supply of goods or services has been made and
who knew, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, that some or all
of the value added tax payable in respect of that supply, or of any
previous or subsequent supply, would go unpaid, may be made
for
jointly and severally liable, with the person who is liable,
payment of that tax, or legislation which provides that a taxable
person may be required to provide security for the payment of that
tax which is or could become payable by the taxable person to
whom he supplies those goods or services or by whom they are
supplied to him.

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S.
Laitinen and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents,)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber) of 8 July 2004 in Case T-203/02 Sunrider v
OHIM dismissing an action for annulment brought by the
applicant for registration of the word mark ‘VITAFRUIT’ for
products in classes 5, 29 and 32 against the decision of the
First Board of Appeal of The Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (OHIM) of 8 April 2002 in Case R 1046/2000-
1 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition
Division refusing in part to register that mark in the opposition
proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national word
mark ‘VITAFRUT’ for certain products in classes 30 and 32

Operative part of the judgment

By contrast, that provision does not preclude a national measure
which imposes on any person who is, pursuant to a national
measure adopted on the basis of Article 21(3) of Sixth Directive
77/388, jointly and severally liable for payment of value added
tax, a requirement to provide security for the payment of that tax
which is due.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

(1) OJ C 273, 16.11.2004.

2. Orders The Sunrider Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 300, 04.12.2004.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 May 2006 —
The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-416/04 P) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Articles 8(1)(b), 15(3)
and 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood
of confusion — Application for Community word mark
VITAFRUIT — Opposition by the proprietor of the national
word mark VITAFRUT — Genuine use of the earlier trade
mark — Proof of consent of the proprietor for the use of the
earlier trade mark — Similarity of goods)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesger-
ichtshof (Germany)) — Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology

(Case C-431/04) (1)

(Patent law — Medicinal products — Regulation (EEC) No
1768/92 — Supplementary protection certificate for medic-
inal products — Concept of ‘combination of active ingredi-
ents’)

(2006/C 165/13)

Language of the case: English

(2006/C 165/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Referring court

Appellant: The Sunrider Corp. (represented by: A. Kockläuner,
Rechtsanwalt)

Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)