Case C-374/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (Preliminary reference — Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Directive 92/12/EEC — Products subject to excise duty — Tax markings — Irregular departure from a suspension arrangement — Theft — Release for consumption in the Member State of the theft — Non-reimbursement of the tax markings of a Member State already affixed to the stolen products)
Date: 2007-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs procedure suspending duties, excise duty, interpretation of the law, redemption, tobacco

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/21

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December
2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and
Duties Tribunal, London — United Kingdom) — Asda
Stores Ltd v Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and
Customs

(Case C-372/06) (1)

(Community Customs Code — Implementing measures —
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Annex 11 — Non-preferen-
tial origin of goods — Television receivers — Concept of
substantial processing or working — Added value test —
Validity and interpretation — EEC-Turkey Association Agree-
ment and Decision No 1/95 of the Association Council —
Interpretation)

(2008/C 51/33)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

VAT and Duties Tribunal, London

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asda Stores Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue
Customs

and

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal,
London — Validity of Annex 11 to Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for
the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253,
p. 1) — Criteria for determining the non-preferential origin of
goods — Television receivers manufactured in Turkey incorpor-
ating cathode-ray tubes originating in China or Korea.

Operative part of the judgment

1) Examination of the first question has disclosed nothing capable of
affecting the validity of the provisions in column 3 under heading
8528 of the Combined Nomenclature, mentioned in Annex 11 to
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993
laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
Code.

in Annex

2) The provisions in column 3 under heading 8528 of the Combined
Nomenclature, mentioned
to Regulation
No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating
the value acquired by colour television receivers on their manufac-
ture in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceed-
ings, there is no cause to determine separately the non-preferential
origin of a distinct part, such as a chassis.

11

3) The provisions of Article 44 of Decision No 1/95 of

the
EEC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995, which
laid down the conditions for the entry into force of the final phase
read in conjunction with those of
of
signed on
the Additional Protocol,
Article 47(1)

the Customs Union,
to (3) of

signed

at Ankara

23 November 1970 in Brussels and concluded, approved and
confirmed on behalf of
the Community by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, annexed to the
establishing an Association between the European
Agreement
Economic Community
on
and Turkey
12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one part,
and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the
other part, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the
Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December
1963, and the provisions of Articles 45 and 46 of the said Deci-
sion No 1/95 do not have direct effect before national courts and
do not therefore allow individual operators validly to plead their
infringement in order to resist payment of anti-dumping duties
normally due. The provisions of Article 47 of Decision No 1/95
have direct effect and the individuals to whom they apply have the
right to rely on them before the courts of the Member States.

4) The provisions of Article 47 of Decision No 1/95 must be inter-
preted as not requiring that the information which the contracting
parties which adopted anti-dumping measures must provide to the
Customs Union Joint Committee pursuant to Article 46 of Deci-
sion No 1/95 or
to
Article 47(2) of the Additional Protocol, must be brought to the
knowledge of operators.

to the Association Council pursuant

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

Judgment of
the Court (First Chamber) of 13 Decem-
ber 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — BATIG
Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt Biele-
feld

(Case C-374/06) (1)

(Preliminary reference — Tax provisions — Harmonisation of
laws — Directive 92/12/EEC — Products subject to excise
duty — Tax markings — Irregular departure from a suspen-
sion arrangement — Theft — Release for consumption in the
Member State of the theft — Non-reimbursement of the tax
markings of a Member State already affixed to the stolen
products)

(2008/C 51/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

C 51/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.2.2008

Re:

Parties to the main proceedings

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
— Interpretation of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February
on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty
and on the holding, movement and monitoring of
such
products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Refusal of a Member State to
repay the amount paid for tax markings attached to tobacco
products which then irregularly left
the duty suspension
arrangements of another Member State with the consequence
that excise duty was paid in the latter State — Theft of cigar-
ettes.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding,
movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council
Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 of 14 April 2003 adapting to Deci-
sion 1999/468/EC the provisions relating to committees which assist
the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers laid down
in Council
instruments adopted in accordance with the consultation
procedure (unanimity), does not preclude the legislation of a Member
State which excludes the reimbursement of the amount paid to obtain
tax markings issued by that Member State when those markings have
been affixed to products subject to excise duty before being released for
consumption in that Member State, when those products have been
stolen in another Member State, involving the payment of excise duties
in that other Member State, and when evidence has not been furnished
that the stolen products will not be marketed in the Member State
which issued those markings.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 Decem-
ber 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
für
Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Landesanstalt

Landwirtschaft v Franz Götz

(Case C-408/06) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Economic activity — Taxable persons
— Bodies governed by public law — Milk-quota sales point
— Transactions of agricultural intervention agencies and staff
shops — Significant distortions of competition — Geographic
market)

(2008/C 51/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Applicant: Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft

Defendant: Franz Götz

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Inter-
pretation of the second and third subparagraphs of Article 4(5)
of and points 7 and 12 in Annex D to Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation 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) — Allocation of reference quantities of milk
invoiced without a separate statement of the VAT — Assessment
of the classification as a taxable person of a body established by
a Land which transfers reference quantities of milk to milk
producers against prepayment

Operative part of the judgment

the

1. A milk-quota sales point is neither an agricultural

intervention
third subparagraph of
agency within the meaning of
Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive
2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001, read in conjunction with point
7 of Annex D thereto, nor a staff shop within the meaning of the
third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of
read in
conjunction with point 12 of Annex D thereto;

that directive,

2. The treatment of a milk-quota sales point as a non-taxable person
in respect of activities or transactions in which it engages as a
public authority, within the meaning of Article 4(5) of the Sixth
Directive, as amended by Directive 2001/4/EC, cannot give rise to
significant distortions of competition, by reason of the fact that it is
not faced, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceed-
ings, with private operators providing services which are in competi-
tion with the public services. As that finding applies in respect of
all milk-quota sales points operating within a given delivery refer-
ence quantity transfer area, defined by the Member State concerned,
that area constitutes the relevant geographic market for the purpose
of establishing whether there are significant distortions of competi-
tion.

(1) OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.