Case C-414/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny, Cracow (Republic of Poland), lodged on 10 September 2007 — MAGOORA Sp. z.o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle, tax harmonisation, tax relief

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/35

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki
Sąd Administracyjny, Cracow (Republic of Poland), lodged
on 10 September 2007 — MAGOORA Sp. z.o.o. v
Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie

(Case C-414/07)

(2007/C 269/59)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny, Cracow

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MAGOORA Sp. z.o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie

Questions referred

1. Does Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth Directive (1) preclude
the Republic of Poland from repealing completely, as of
1 May 2004, national provisions in force up to that date
concerning restrictions on the deduction of input tax on
purchases of fuel for vehicles used for a taxable activity and
also introducing in their place restrictions on the deduction
of input tax on purchases of fuel for vehicles used for a
taxable activity but which are defined in national law on the
basis of different criteria to those used prior to 1 May 2004,
and from subsequently amending those criteria again with
effect from 22 August 2005?

2. If

the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: does
Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive preclude the Republic of
Poland from amending the above criteria so as de facto to
restrict the scope of deductions of input tax in comparison
with the national provisions in force on 30 April 2004 or
with the national provisions in force before the amendment
made on 22 August 2005? If it should be found that this
action by the Republic of Poland constitutes a breach of
Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive, would it be necessary to
find that a taxable person would be entitled to make deduc-
tions but only in so far as the amendments to the national
provisions went beyond the scope of
the restrictions on
deducting input tax provided for in the national provisions
in force on 30 April 2004 and repealed on that same date?

3. Does Article 17(6) of

the Sixth Directive preclude the
Republic of Poland, invoking the possibility, provided for in
that provision, for Member States to restrict the deduction of
input tax attaching to expenditure which is not strictly busi-
ness expenditure, such as that on luxuries, amusements or
entertainment, from restricting the deduction of input tax in
comparison with the position in law as it stood on 30 April
2004 so as to exclude the deduction of input tax on the

purchase of fuel for passenger cars or other motor vehicles
with a maximum authorised mass not exceeding 3,5 tonnes,
with the exception of vehicles referred to in Article 86(4) of
the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Polish Law on
the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004, in the
version in force since 22 August 2005?

(1) 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 1977 L 145, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre
lodged on 13 September 2007 —
Landsret (Denmark)

Criminal proceedings against Frede Damgaard

(Case C-421/07)

(2007/C 269/60)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Party to the main proceedings

Frede Damgaard

Question referred

the European
Is Article 86 of Directive 2001/83/EC of
Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the
Community code relating to medicinal products for human
use (1), as subsequently amended, to be interpreted as meaning
information about a
that dissemination by a third party of
medicinal product, including in particular information about the
medicinal product's therapeutic or prophylactic properties, is to
be understood as constituting advertising, even though the third
party in question is acting on his own initiative and completely
independently, de jure and de facto, of the manufacturer and the
seller?

(1) OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.