Case C-434/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands) — Stichting Regionaal Opleidingen Centrum Noord-Kennemerland/West-Friesland (Horizon College) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13A(1)(i) and 13A(2) — Teaching staff employed by one educational establishment made available, for consideration, to another)
Date: 2007-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, delivery, education, interpretation of the law, provision of services, tax exemption, teaching

C 183/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.8.2007

Re:

Re:

against

brought

judgment

the Court
the
Appeal
of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 September 2005 in Case
T-72/04 Hosman-Chevalier v Commission, in which the Court of
First Instance annulled the Commission's decisions refusing to
grant payment of the expatriation allowance and the installation
allowance

of

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

1,

11(3),

of Articles

subparagraph

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg —
Interpretation
first
sentence, Article 47(2) and 48(2)(a) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down
common detailed rules for the application of the system of
export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1),
as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 495/97 of
18 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 77, p. 12) — Concept of ‘undue
payment of a refund’ — Recovery of refunds awarded on
production of an incomplete transport document,
the duly
completed document having been produced only after expiry of
the time-limits

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

Operative part of the judgment

costs.

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg, Germany) — Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh &
Fleisch Import-Export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-428/05) (1)

(Export
refunds — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 —
Definition of ‘undue payment of a refund’ — Payment of a
incomplete documentation —
refund on the basis
relating to the
Possibility of
payment of
the periods
referred to in Articles 47(2) and 48(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC)
recovery
No 3665/87 in the

completing the documents

the refund after

the expiry of

of

context of a subsequent
procedure)

(2007/C 183/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

as

not

can

export

refund

‘unduly

regarded

An
paid’,
be
within the meaning of the first sentence of the first subparagraph of
Article 11(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of
27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the appli-
cation of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as last
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 604/98 of 17 March
1998, if the beneficiary, in the context of a recovery procedure for the
refund, produces the necessary evidence to justify its right
to that
refund. It is a matter for the competent national authorities to set a
reasonable time-limit which allows the beneficiary to produce this
evidence.

(1) OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden,
Regionaal
Opleidingen Centrum Noord-Kennemerland/West-Friesland
(Horizon College) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Netherlands) — Stichting

(Case C-434/05) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13A(1)(i) and
13A(2) — Teaching staff employed by one educational
establishment made available, for consideration, to another)

(2007/C 183/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Applicant: Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh & Fleisch Import-
Export

Referring court

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/9

Parties to the main proceedings

conditions which may have been introduced by the Member
State concerned pursuant to Article 13A(2)(a);

Applicant: Stichting Regionaal Opleidingen Centrum Noord-
Kennemerland/West-Friesland (Horizon College)

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

for

Reference
a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 13(A)(1)(i) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Extent of the exemption in
it — Teacher employed by one educational establishment made
available, for consideration, to another

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 13A(1)(i) 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,
is to be interpreted as
meaning that the expression ‘children's or young people's education,
school or university education, vocational training or retraining’
does not cover the making available, for consideration, of a teacher
to an educational establishment, within the meaning of that provi-
sion, in which that teacher temporarily carries out teaching duties
under the responsibility of that establishment, even if the body
which makes the teacher available is itself a body governed by
public law that has an educational aim, or another organisation
defined by the Member State concerned as having similar objects.

2) Article 13A(1)(i) of Sixth Directive 77/388, read in conjunction
with Article 13A(2) of
is to be interpreted as
that directive,
meaning that the making available, for consideration, of a teacher
to an educational establishment in which that teacher temporarily
carries out teaching duties under the responsibility of that establish-
ment, may constitute a transaction that is exempt from value added
tax on the basis that it is a supply of services ‘closely related’ to
education, within the meaning of Article 13A(1)(i),
if such a
is a means of better enjoying the education
teacher placement
deemed to be the principal service, provided, however, — which it
is for the national court to verify — that:

— both that

principal

placement which
is closely related to it are provided by bodies referred to in
Article 13A(1)(i), taking into account, where appropriate, any

service

and

the

— that placement is of a nature and quality such that, without
recourse to such a service, there could be no assurance that the
education provided by the host establishment and, consequently,
the education from which its students benefit, would have an
equivalent value; and

— the basic purpose of such a placement is not to obtain addi-
tional income by carrying out a transaction which is in direct
competition with commercial enterprises liable for value added
tax.

(1) OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2007
from the
(reference
preliminary
v
Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Werner Haderer

ruling

for

a

Finanzamt Wilmersdorf

(Case C-445/05) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13A(1)(j) —
Tuition given privately by teachers and covering school or
university education — Education provided in the context of
courses organised by adult education centres — No direct
contractual link with pupils)

(2007/C 183/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Werner Haderer

Respondent: Finanzamt Wilmersdorf