Case C-96/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2007 — Ecotrade SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova 3
Date: 2007-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, VAT, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, national law, tax relief

C 117/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.5.2007

3. In the event that the answer to Question 2 is that the appli-
cant should have been granted the opportunity to conclude
an employment contract, the question must be asked:

What are the consequences in law in the event of discrimina-
tion against foreign nationals?

lating the ‘formalities’ referred to in that provision by means
of the reverse charge procedure governed by the combined
provisions of Articles 17(3), 23 and 25 of DPR 633/72,
make (solely to the detriment of the taxpayer) the exercise of
the right to deduct permitted by Article 17 of the Directive
conditional upon compliance with a time limit such as that
laid down in Article 19 of DPR 633/72?

(1) OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
Tributaria Provinciale di Genova
lodged on
20 February 2007 — Ecotrade SpA v Agenzia Entrate
Ufficio Genoa 3

(Italy)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
Tributaria Provinciale di Genova
lodged on
20 February 2007 — Ecotrade SpA v Agenzia Entrate
Ufficio Genova 3

(Italy)

(Case C-95/07)

(2007/C 117/05)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case C-96/07)

(2007/C 117/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Genova

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ecotrade SpA

Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genoa 3

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Geonva

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ecotrade SpA

Questions referred

Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova 3

1. Does a correct interpretation of Articles 17, 21(1) and 22 of
the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes preclude national
legislation (in
particular Article 19 of DPR 633 of 26/10/72) that makes
the exercise of the right to deduct value added tax, payable
by a taxable person in the pursuit of his business activities,
dependent on compliance with a (two-year) time limit and
penalises non-compliance with annulment of that right? That
question is asked with reference, in particular, to cases where
the liability to VAT on the purchase of the goods or service
stems from the application of the reverse charge procedure,
which allows the authorities a longer period (of four years
under Article 57 of DPR 633/72)
in which to demand
payment of the duty than the period allowed to the trader
for deduction of the duty, on expiry of which the trader's
right to such deduction lapses.

2. Does

it

follow from a

of
Article 18(1)(d) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
of 17 May 1977 that national legislation may not, in regu-

interpretation

correct

Questions referred

1. Does a correct interpretation of Articles 17, 21(1) and 22 of
the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes preclude national
legislation (in
particular Article 19 of DPR 633 of 26/10/72) that makes
the exercise of the right to deduct value added tax, payable
by a taxable person in the pursuit of his business activities,
dependent on compliance with a (two-year) time limit and
penalises non-compliance with annulment of that right? That
question is asked with reference, in particular, to cases where
the liability to VAT on the purchase of the goods or service
stems from the application of the reverse charge procedure,
which allows the authorities a longer period (of four years
under Article 57 of DPR 633/72)
in which to demand
payment of the duty than the period allowed to the trader
for deduction of the duty, on expiry of which the trader's
right to such deduction lapses.

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/5

2. Does

it

correct

interpretation

follow from a

of
Article 18(1)(d) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
of 17 May 1977 that national legislation may not, in regu-
lating the ‘formalities’ referred to in that provision by means
of the reverse charge procedure governed by the combined
provisions of Articles 17(3), 23 and 25 of DPR 633/72,
make (solely to the detriment of the taxpayer) the exercise of
the right to deduct permitted by Article 17 of the Directive
conditional upon compliance with a time limit such as that
laid down in Article 19 of DPR 633/72?

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

Action brought on 26 February 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-112/07)

(2007/C 117/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. De Persio and M. Condou-Durande, acting as
Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compen-
sation to crime victims (1) or, in any case, by not communi-
cating to the Commission the text of those provisions, the
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
Directive;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for
transposition of Directive
the
2004/80/EC into national law expired on 1 January 2006, with
the exception of Article 12(2) of that Directive, in respect of
which the date of compliance was 1 July 2005.

(1) OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 15.

Appeal brought on 27 February 2007 by Selex Sistemi
Integrati S.p.A.
judgment delivered on
the
12 December 2006 in Case T-155/04 Selex Sistemi Integrati
S.p.A. v Commission of the European Communities

against

(Case C-113/07 P)

(2007/C 117/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Selex Sistemi Integrati S.p.A. (represented by: F. Sciau-
done, R. Sciaudone and D. Fioretti, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, Eurocontrol — European Organisation for the
Safety of Air Navigation

Forms of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities
of 12 December 2006 in
Case T-155/04 and refer the case back to that Court for a
ruling on the merits in the light of guidance provided by the
Court of Justice;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of

the present
proceedings, and those of the proceedings in Case T-155/04.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the forms of order sought, the appellant alleges a
number of errors in law in relation both to the procedure and
to the merits.

Errors in law in relation to the procedure

By way of errors in law on the part of the Court of First
Instance in relation to the procedure, the appellant alleges:

— infringement of Article 116(6) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance, in so far as that Court authorised
communication of
and
the pleadings
permitted the latter to lodge written pleadings;

to Eurocontrol

— infringement of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance, in so far as the facts on the basis
of which the new pleas adduced by the appellant were ruled
inadmissible were distorted;

— infringement of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance, in so far as the Commission's
conduct vis-à-vis the facts on the basis of which the new
pleas adduced by the appellant were ruled inadmissible was
not taken into consideration;