Case C-302/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom) made on 29 June 2007 — J D Wetherspoon PLC v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, VAT, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, tax on consumption

C 211/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2007

By its eighth ground of appeal, the Commission argues, finally,
that the judgment under appeal is totally disproportionate since
it annuls its decision in its entirety whereas it was possible to
distinguish the amount of the principal from the amount of
interest payable, just as it was possible to distinguish the use of
a simple interest rate from that of a compound interest rate.

(1) Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid
granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12,
p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties
Tribunal, London (United Kingdom) made on 29 June 2007
— J D Wetherspoon PLC v The Commissioners of Her
Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-302/07)

(2007/C 211/38)

Language of the case: English

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
lodged on 21 June 2007 —
Regensburg (Germany)

Staatsanwaltschaft Regensburg v Klaus Bourquain

Referring court

VAT and Duties Tribunal, London

(Case C-297/07)

(2007/C 211/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Regensburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatsanwaltschaft Regensburg

Defendant: Klaus Bourquain

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J D Wetherspoon PLC

Defendant: The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and
Customs

Questions referred

1. Is the rounding off of VAT amounts governed solely by
national law, or instead governed by Community law? In par-
ticular do the first and second paragraphs of Article 2 of the
First Directive (1) and Articles 11A(l)(a) and/or 12(3)(a)
and/or Article 22(3)(b), (version as at 1st January 2004) of
the Sixth Directive (2) confirm that rounding off is a matter
of Community law?

Question referred

2. In particular:

the States of

With regard to the interpretation of Article 54 of the Conven-
tion implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985
between the Governments of
the Benelux
Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the
French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their
common borders (1), does the rule prohibiting a person whose
trial has been finally disposed of in one contracting party from
being prosecuted in another contracting party for the same act
apply, where the penalty imposed on him could never be
enforced under the laws of the sentencing contracting party?

(1) OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19.

(i) Does Community law prevent

the application of a
national rule or practice of the national taxing authority
which requires rounding up of any given VAT amount
whenever the fraction of the smallest unit of currency is
concerned is at or above 0.50 (for example, 0.5 pence is
required to be rounded up to the nearest whole pence)?

(ii) Does Community law require that

the taxpayers be
allowed to round down any VAT amount which includes
a fraction of the smallest unit of currency available?

3. In a VAT inclusive sale at which level does Community law
require rounding off to be applied for the purpose of calcu-
lating the VAT due: at the level of each individual item, each
line of goods, each supply (if more than one supply is
included in the same basket), each transaction/basket total, or
each VAT accounting period or some other level?

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/21

4. Is the answer to any of the questions affected by the Com-
munity law principles of equal treatment and fiscal neutrality,
particularly by reference to the existence,
in the United
Kingdom, of a concession by the relevant taxing authorities
allowing only certain traders to round down the VAT
amounts to be accounted for?

income tax under domestic Luxembourg tax legislation? Is it
therefore contrary to the above articles of the EC Treaty for a
SICAV resident in Luxembourg which is the recipient of a divi-
dend not to be exempt from withholding tax charged in Finland
on dividends?

(1) First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmo-
nisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes
(OJ 71, p. 1301), English special edition: Series 1, Chapter 1967,
p. 14.

(2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC OF 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ L 145, p. 1).

(1) Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common
system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and
subsidiaries of different Member Sates, OJ L 225, 20.8.1990. p. 6.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
hallinto-oikeus, Finland lodged on 29 June 2007 —
Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha Oy

(Case C-303/07)

(2007/C 211/39)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus, Finland

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgericht-
shof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2007 — Directmedia
Publishing GmbH v 1. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg,
2. Professor Ulrich Knoop

(Case C-304/07)

(2007/C 211/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Directmedia Publishing GmbH

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha Oy

Respondents: 1. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 2. Professor
Ulrich Knoop

Other parties: Uudenmaan verovirasto and Helsingin kaupunki

Question referred

Question referred

freedoms set out

Are Articles 43 EC and 48 EC and Articles 56 EC and 58 EC to
be interpreted as meaning that, in order to safeguard the funda-
mental
therein, an osakeyhtiö (company
limited by shares) or sijoitusrahasto (investment fund) consti-
tuted under Finnish law and a SICAV constituted under
Luxembourg law are to be regarded as comparable despite the
fact that a form of company corresponding exactly to a SICAV
is not recognised in Finnish legislation, having regard, first, to
the fact that a SICAV, which is a company under Luxembourg
law, is not mentioned in the list of companies referred to in
Article 2(a) of Directive 90/435/EEC (1), with which the Finnish
withholding tax legislation applicable in the present case is
consistent, and, second, to the fact that a SICAV is exempt from

Can the adoption of data from a database protected in accord-
ance with Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal
protection of databases (database directive) (1) and their incor-
poration in a different database constitute an extraction within
the meaning of Article 7(2)(a) of that directive even in the case
where that adoption follows individual assessments resulting
from consultation of the database, or does extraction within the
meaning of that provision presuppose the (physical) copying of
data?

(1) OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20.