Case C-424/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Sonja Hosman-Chevalier (Appeal — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of work done for another State )
Date: 2007-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, appeal, interpretation of the law, regulations for civil servants

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/7

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

1. In the case of a State such as the Portuguese Republic, which
acceded to the European Communities with effect from 1 January
1986, in the absence of derogating provisions in the Act of Acces-
sion of that State or in another Community document, Article 7(1)
of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council
Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted to
mean that the mandatory exemption for which it provides applies
to all transactions falling within the scope of Directive 69/335
which, on 1 July 1984, were exempted, in that State, from capital
duty or which were subject
to that duty at a reduced rate of
0.50 % or less.

2. In the case of a State such as the Portuguese Republic, which
acceded to the European Communities with effect from 1 January
1986, Articles 7(1) and 10 of Directive 69/335, as amended by
Directive 85/303, prohibit
introduction, after 1 January
the
1986, of stamp duty on a transaction increasing share capital
falling within the scope of Directive 69/335 which, on 1 July
1984, was exempted from that duty under national law.

(1) OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2007 —
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
Belgium

(Case C-422/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2002/30/EC — Air transport — Noise-related operating
restrictions at Community airports — Adoption by a Member
State of a measure liable seriously to compromise the result
prescribed by the directive during the transposition period)

(2007/C 183/11)

Language of the case: French

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of the
second paragraph of Article 10 EC and the third paragraph of
Article 249 EC — Measures taken by a Member State during
the period laid down for
implementation of Directive
2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures
with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating
restrictions at Community airports (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 40) which
are liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the
Directive — National legislation limiting night flights of certain
types of civil subsonic jet aircraft

Operative part of the judgment

1. Declares that, by adopting the Royal Decree of 14 April 2002
regulating night flights of certain types of civil subsonic jet aero-
planes, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and
procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating
restrictions at Community airports and under the second paragraph
of Article 10 EC, read in conjunction with the third paragraph of
Article 249 EC;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2007 —
the European Communities v Sonja
Commission of

Hosman-Chevalier

(Case C-424/05 P) (1)

(Appeal — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance —
Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the
Staff Regulations — Concept of ‘work done for another
State’)

(2007/C 183/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: F. Benyon and M. Huttunen, Agents, acting as
Agents)

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Kraemer and M. Velardo, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Wimmer
and A. Hubert, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Sonja Hosman-Chevalier (repre-
sented by: J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, A. Sayagués Torres
and D. Dominguez Pérez, abogados)

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