Case C-515/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 22 November 2007 — Vereniging Noordelijke Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2007-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, VAT, goods and services, intermediate goods, interpretation of the law, tax relief, tax system

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/33

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission complains that the defendant has
frequently not complied with the obligation to stock petroleum
products under Directive 68/414/EEC, as amended and then
codified by Council Directive 2006/67/EC of 24 July 2006 (2),
as regards the products in the second category under that direc-
tive, namely gas oil, diesel oil, kerosene and jet-fuel of the kero-
sene type. The Commission points out, particularly,
in that
regard,
considerable discrepancy exists
between the figures relating to internal consumption of the
products in question provided by the defendant in its monthly
returns and the data available to the Commission via Eurostat.

sometimes

that

a

in

read

280/2004/EC,

By its action, the Commission accuses the defendant of not
fully implementing the obligations contained in Decision
No
conjunction with Decision
No 2005/166/EC. First, the defendant has failed to provide in its
annual report the information relating to the methods and to
the types of activity data and emissions factors used in the
Community's principal sources. Second, the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has not communicated to the Commission a
general uncertainty assessment affecting the elements of
the
Luxembourg national inventory report.

(1) OJ English Special Edition, Series I, Chapter 1968 II, p. 586.
(2) OJ 2006 L 217, p. 8.

(1) OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2005 L 55, p. 57.

Action brought on 21 November 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden lodged on 22 November 2007 —
Vereniging Noordelijke Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie v
Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-511/07)

(2008/C 22/59)

Language of the case: French

(Case C-515/07)

(2008/C 22/60)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Referring court

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet and U. Wölker, acting as Agents)

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Form of order sought

Appellant: Vereniging Noordelijke Land- en Tuinbouw Organi-
satie

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

and of

the European Parliament

— declare that, by failing to communicate the information
required under Article 3(1)(f) of Decision No 280/2004/EC
of
the Council of
11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring
Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing
the Kyoto Protocol (1), in conjunction with Articles 2 and
4(1)(b) and (d) of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of
10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision
No 280/2004/EC (2), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Questions referred

1. Are Articles 6(2) and 17(1), (2) and (6) of the Sixth VAT
Directive (1) to be interpreted as permitting a taxable person
to allocate wholly to his business not only capital goods but
all goods and services used both for business purposes and
for purposes other than business purposes and to deduct
immediately and in full the VAT due on the acquisition of
those goods and services?

C 22/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.1.2008

2. If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, does the applica-
tion of Article 6(2) of the Sixth Directive to services and
goods other than capital goods mean that VAT is collected
once during the tax period over which the deduction in
respect of
those services and goods is enjoyed, or must
collection also occur in ensuing periods and, if so, how is
the taxable amount to be determined in respect of goods and
services which the taxable person does not write off?

(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).

3. Do fuel additives such as those at

issue, which are not
intended for use, offered for sale or used as motor fuel but
which are added to motor fuel
for purposes other than
is used, fall to be
powering the vehicle in which the fuel
taxed under the second paragraph of Article 2(3) of Directive
2003/96/EC (2)?

4. If the answer to the third question is affirmative, are such
additives excluded from the scope of Directive 2003/96/EC
by virtue of the first indent of Article 4(b) of that Directive?

5. Is the duty imposed by the UK on the above fuel additives
precluded by Community law and in particular, by Article 3
of Directive 92/12/EEC (3)?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of
(United Kingdom) made on
Justice (Chancery Division)
22 November 2007 — Afton Chemical Limited v The
Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

(1) OJ L 316, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 283, p. 51.
(3) OJ L 76, p. 1.

(Case C-517/07)

(2008/C 22/61)

Language of the case: English

Appeal brought on 22 November 2007 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the judgment of the
Court of First
(Fourth Chamber, Extended
Composition) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case
T-196/02 MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH v Commission of
the European Communities

Instance

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Afton Chemical Limited

Parties

(Case C-520/07 P)

(2008/C 22/62)

Language of the case: German

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

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: K. Gross, B. Martenczuk)

Questions referred

Other party to the proceedings: MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH

1. Do fuel additives such as those at

issue, which are not
intended for use, offered for sale or used as motor fuel but
for purposes other than
which are added to motor fuel
powering the vehicle in which the fuel
is used, fall to be
taxed under Article 2(3) of Directive 92/81/EC?

2. If the answer to the first question is affirmative, do such
the exemption under

additives fall within the scope of
Article 8(1) of Directive 92/81/EC (1)?

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance
delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-196/02 MTU
Friedrichshafen GmbH v Commission of the European Commu-
nities,