Case C-98/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 22 February 2007 — Nordania Finans A/S and BG Factoring A/S v Skatteministeriet
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: hire purchase, intermediate goods, interpretation of the law, tax harmonisation, tax law

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/25

Question referred

Should one interpret the expression ‘shall receive benefits in
accordance with the legislation of that State as if he had last
been employed there’ contained in Article 71 of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) 1408/71 (1) of 14 June 1971, on the application of
social security schemes to employed persons, self employed
persons and members of their families moving within the Com-
munity, be interpreted as meaning that the requirement set out
within Article 215.1 of the Ley General de la Seguridad Social
of ‘having exhausted entitlement to contributory unemployment
benefit’ for the purposes of entitlement to Spanish benefits of
non-contributory unemployment allowances,
is be understood
to have been fulfilled if a German contributory unemployment
benefit has been exhausted, even if the recipient has never paid
contributions in Spain?

Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by Coop de France
Bétail et Viande, formerly the Fédération nationale de la
coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV) against the judgment
delivered on 13 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-217/03
and T-245/03 Coop de France Bétail et Viande v Commis-
sion

(Case C-101/07 P)

(2007/C 95/46)

Language of the case: French

(1) OJ 2001 L 149, p 2.

Parties

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret
lodged on 22 February 2007 — Nordania
(Denmark)

Finans A/S and BG Factoring A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-98/07)

(2007/C 95/45)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nordania Finans A/S and BG Factoring A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Appellant: Coop de France Bétail et Viande, formerly Fédération
nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV)
(repre-
sented by: M. Ponsard, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Fédération nationale des syndicats
d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), Fédération nationale bovine
(FNB), Fédération nationale de producteurs de lait (FNPL), Jeunes
agriculteurs (JA), Commission of the European Communities,
French Republic

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of

13 December 2006 in Case T-217/03;

— declare that there is no need to impose a fine on the appli-

cant;

— alternatively reduce the amount of the fine imposed by that

judgment;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs related to the
interim and the main proceedings before the Court of First
Instance and the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

Question referred

Pleas in law and main arguments

Is the expression ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for
the purposes of his business’ contained in Article 19(2) of Sixth
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmoni-
sation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
assessment (1), to be interpreted as covering goods which a
leasing undertaking purchases with a view both to leasing and
resale upon termination of the leasing contract?

(1) OJ L 145, p. 1.

The applicant puts forward six grounds in support of its appeal.
By its first five grounds, which seek to have the contested judg-
ment set aside, the applicant alleges, first, that the Court of First
Instance erred in failing to recognise the infringement of the
rights of defence by the Commission relating to the absence of
a reference in the statement of objections to the method used
for the calculation of the fines, second, the distortion by the
Court of First Instance of the evidence on the secret extension
of the agreement of October 2001, third, that the Court of First
Instance committed an error of
law by presuming that the
applicant adhered to the pursuit of the agreement by referring
to an overall agreement between slaughterers and breeders,
without specifically establishing the appellant's acquiescence to
its pursuit, fourth, even assuming that its acquiescence were to