Case C-357/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 31 July 2007 — The Queen on the application of TNT Post UK Ltd v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs and Royal Mail Group Ltd
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, postal service, provision of services, tax exemption, tax system, universal service

C 247/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

5. Must

the principles,

to be inferred from … Directive
[89/105/EC], of transparency and of shared participation on
the part of the undertakings with an interest in measures
freezing the prices of pharmaceutical products or reducing
them across the board be interpreted as requiring provision
to be made, always and in any circumstances, for the possibi-
lity of derogation from the price imposed (Article 4(2) [of
Directive 89/105/EC]) and for genuine participation by the
the
applicant company, with the consequent need for
administrative authorities to state the reasons for any refusal?

(1) Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the
transparency of measures
regulating the pricing of medicinal
products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national
health insurance systems (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of
Justice
(England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division
(Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 31 July
2007 — The Queen on the application of TNT Post UK Ltd
v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue &
Customs and Royal Mail Group Ltd

(Case C-357/07)

(2007/C 247/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of
Division (Administrative Court)

Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TNT Post UK Ltd

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

b) Is the interpretation of that expression affected by the fact
that postal services in a Member State have been liberal-
ised, there are no reserved services within the meaning of
Council Directive 97/67/EC (3), as amended, and there is
one designated universal service provider that has been
notified to the Commission pursuant to that Directive
(such as Royal Mail in the United Kingdom)?

c) in the circumstances of the present case (which are as set

out in b) above) does that expression include

(i) only the sole designated universal services provider

(such as Royal Mail in the United Kingdom) or

(ii) also a private postal operator (such as TNT Post)?

2. In the circumstances of the present case, is Article 13A(1)(a)
of the Sixth VAT Directive (now Article 132(1)(a) of Direc-
tive 2006/112) to be interpreted as requiring or permitting a
Member State to exempt all postal services provided by ‘the
public postal services’?

3. If Member States are required or permitted to exempt some,
but not all, of the services provided by ‘the public postal
services’, by reference to which criteria are those services, by
reference to which criteria are those services to be identified?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nization 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).

(2) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the

common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1).

(3) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the
internal market of Community postal services and the improvement
of quality of service (OJ L 15, p. 14).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles
Protodikio Kerkyras (Greece) lodged on 2 August 2007 —
Spyridon Vassilakis and Others v Municipality of Corfu

(Case C-364/07)

(2007/C 247/16)

Interested Party: Royal Mail Group Ltd

Language of the case: Greek

Questions referred

1. a) How is the expression ‘the public postal services’

in
Article 13A(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Directive
77/388/EEC) (1)
(now Article 132(1)(a) of Directive
2006/112 (2)) to be interpreted?

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikio Kerkyras (Corfu Court of First Instance)