Case C-371/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 6 August 2007 — Danfoss A/S and AstraZeneca A/S v Skatteministeriet
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, catering, interpretation of the law, tax relief, type of business

C 247/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

in the form of a reduction in the prices of all categories, and
of certain specific categories, of medicinal product, or must
‘decreases …, if any’ be interpreted as referring exclusively to
the medicinal products which are already subject to the price
freeze?

2. In requiring the competent authorities of a Member State to
verify, at least once a year,
in the case of price freezes,
whether the macroeconomic conditions justify continuing
that price freeze, may Article 4(1) [of Directive 89/105/EC]
be interpreted as meaning that, if the reply to Question I is
that a price reduction is permissible, it is possible to have
recourse to such a measure even more than once in the
course of a single year, and to do that again for many years
(from 2002 until 2010)?

3. Under the terms of Article 4 [of Directive 89/105/EC] —
read in the light of the preamble emphasising that the prin-
cipal aim of measures controlling the prices of medicinal
products is ‘the promotion of public health by ensuring the
availability of adequate supplies of medicinal products at a reason-
able cost’ and preventing ‘disparities in such measures [which] may
hinder or distort intra-Community trade in medicinal products’ —
is it compatible with the Community rules to adopt measures
which refer to economic values attributed to that expenditure
on the basis of ‘predictions’ rather than values which have
been ‘ascertained’ (this question relates to both situations)?

4. Must the requirements relating to compliance with the ceil-
ings for pharmaceutical expenditure which each Member
State is competent to determine be linked, point by point, to
pharmaceutical expenditure alone, or is it within the powers
of the Member States to take account also of data relating to
other health expenditure?

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
regulating the pricing of medicinal
transparency of measures
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 the Vestre
Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 6 August 2007 — Danfoss
A/S and AstraZeneca A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-371/07)

(2007/C 247/20)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Danfoss A/S and AstraZeneca A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Questions referred

1. Is the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth VAT
Directive (1) to be interpreted in such a way that it is a condi-
tion for the refusal by a Member State of a right to deduct
value added tax on supplies used for the provision of meals
to business contacts and staff in a company's canteen in
connection with meetings that there was, prior to the entry
into force of the directive, authority under national legisla-
tion for the deduction refusal
this
authority was applied in practice by the tax authorities in
such a way that the right to deduct value added tax on these
supplies was refused?

in question and that

2. Does it have any significance in answering Question 1 that
company-operated canteens were not subject to VAT under
the national VAT rules in force in the Member State in ques-
tion before the implementation of the Sixth VAT Directive in
1978, that the national deduction exclusion rules were not
changed by the implementation of the Sixth VAT Directive,
that
and that
company-operated canteens became subject to VAT on the
implementation of the Sixth VAT Directive that the deduc-
tion exclusion rule could become relevant to that type of
business?

it was exclusively as a result of

the fact

3. Is an exclusion from the right to deduct ‘retained’ within the
meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the
Sixth VAT Directive if, from the implementation of the Sixth
VAT Directive in 1978 until 1999, as a result of an adminis-
trative practice such as that described in the main proceed-
ings there was a right to deduct VAT on the expenditure in
question?

20.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/17

4. Are subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Article 6(2) of the Sixth
VAT Directive to be interpreted in such a way that the provi-
sion covers the supply of meals by the company free of
charge to business contacts in its own canteen in connection
with meetings at the company?

5. Are subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Article 6(2) of the Sixth
VAT Directive to be interpreted in such a way that the provi-
sion covers the supply of meals by the company free of
charge to its staff in its own canteen in connection with
meetings at the company?

(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 1977 L 145, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Mebrom NV against
the judgment of
Instance (Second
the Court of First
Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case T-216/05:
Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-373/07 P)

(2007/C 247/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Mebrom NV (represented by: K. Van Maldegem,
avocat, C. Mereu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

the defendant was right

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance (hereafter
‘CFI’) did not ensure that the law is observed in the interpreta-
tion and application of Community law, as it is required to do
under Art. 220 EC. The contested judgment dismissed the
action for annulment on the basis of an incorrect interpretation
and application of Arts. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation
2037/2000 (1). Moreover, the judgment lacked sufficient and
consistent reasoning and it contained a series of errors of law
and distortion of facts on record. The appellant maintains that
to
the CFI erroneously held that
conclude that import quotas were no longer to be granted to
importers but that it follows from Art. 7 of the regulation that,
as of 2005, quotas were to be allocated to fumigators only
(being users as opposed to importers). The CFI ruled that Art. 7
of regulation 2037/2000 left the defendant free to choose in
this respect. Additionally, the appellant submits that the CFI
failed to assess properly whether the defendant has made accep-
table use of its alleged discretion in this regard. The CFI also
failed to acknowledge that the defendant acted ultra vires and,
furthermore, did not assess and address correctly whether the
defendant infringed the legitimate expectations of the appellant.
Finally, it is argued that the CFI also failed to adjudicate fully
and properly the Applicant's arguments as submitted in the
application.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone
layer (OJ L 244, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Mebrom NV against
Instance (Second
the Court of First
the judgment of
Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case T-198/05:
Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-374/07 P)

(2007/C 247/22)

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Language of the case: English

— Declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

— Set aside the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of

22 May 2007 in Case T-216/05;

— Declare the Appellant's requests in Case T-216/05 admissible

Parties

and well-founded;

— Grant the application for annulment made in first instance
in the alternative, refer the case to the Court of First

or,
Instance to rule on the merits; and

Appellant: Mebrom NV (represented by: K. Van Maldegem,
avocat, C. Mereu, avocat)

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

bear all costs and expenses of both proceedings.

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European