Case C-378/05: Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2006 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Samotor SPRL v Belgian State
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, contract, interpretation of the law, tax evasion, tax relief

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/35

is founded in it entirety on an incorrect

In its first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the
Court of First Instance distorted the facts or, at the very least,
erred in the legal appraisal of those facts and the consequences
in law to be drawn from them. According to the appellant, the
judgment
factual
assumption inasmuch as the Court of First Instance took the
view that the Belgian computerised system of graphic encoding
of agricultural areas (GIS) constitutes a measurement
tool
which is closer to reality than the area data declared by farmers
themselves, whereas the exact area of an agricultural holding
can only be determined, in a formal and indubitable manner,
either by measurement carried out by a person properly quali-
fied to do so or by photo interpretation of satellite images
taken in the framework of teledetection.

By its second ground of appeal, which consists of five limbs,
the appellant alleges breach of Articles 6(7) and 8 of Regulation
(EEC) No 3508/92 (2) and of Articles 6 and 9 of Regulation
(EEC) No 3887/92 (3) inasmuch as the Court of First Instance,
inter alia, wrongly formed the view that the appellant was
under an obligation to comply with implied rules necessary for
compliance with express rules and inasmuch as it incorrectly
considered that the control system introduced by the Belgian
authorities would not be effective by reason of the lack of
follow-up of the GIS data and because of late encoding of the
data. The appellant also submits that, in several respects, the
reasoning provided by the Court of First Instance is inadequate
and/or contradictory.

The third ground of appeal is based on an error of law allegedly
committed by the Court of First Instance in regard to the appli-
cation of the principle of proportionality, as the maximum
harm suffered by FEOGA was, in the opinion of the appellant,
significantly less than the flat-rate correction imposed.

Finally, by its fourth ground of appeal; the appellant expresses
the view that the Court of First Instance wrongly dismissed, as
being inadmissible, its request that that Court reduce the flat-
rate correction imposed on the basis of its unlimited jurisdic-
tion. The lack of an express provision conferring on the Com-
munity Courts unlimited jurisdiction does not, ipso facto, mean
that they do not have any such jurisdiction.

(1) Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding
from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the
Member States under the Guarantee Section of the EuropeanAgricul-
tural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 40, p. 31).
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 estab-
lishing an integrated administration and control system for certain
Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, 1).

(3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992
laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration
and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992
L 391, p. 36), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
1648/95 of 6 July 1995 (OJ 1995 L 156, p. 27).

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court
of 6 September 2006 –Republic of Austria v European
Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-161/04) (1)

(2006/C 294/61)

Language of the case: German

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be
removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the
Court of 4 August 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Landesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Zentral-
betriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols v Land Tirol

(Case C-339/05) (1)

(2006/C 294/62)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case
be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 281, 21.11.2005.

Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2006
— (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
cassation — Belgium) — Samotor SPRL v Belgian State

(Case C-378/05) (1)

(2006/C 294/63)

Language of the case: French

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.