Case C-174/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  25 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Italy) — Ministero delle Finanze v CO.GE.P. Srl (Sixth Directive — VAT — Exempted transactions — Leasing or letting of immovable property — Property owned by the State)
Date: 2007-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, property leasing, public building, tax exemption, tax system

C 315/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.12.2007

3. Dismisses the application before the Court of First Instance of the
in so far as it is based on a breach of

European Communities,
Article 21(2) and (3) EC;

4. Orders Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Ntokos, Donatos Pappas,
Vassileios Pappas, Aristeidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini
Pappa, Eirini Pappa, Alexandra Ntokou, Fotios Dimitriou, Zoï
Dimitriou, Petros Bolossis, Despoina Bolossi and Konstantinos
Bolossis, Thomas Bolossis to pay the costs at first instance. The
costs of the proceedings at first instance leading to the order of the
Court of First of the European Communities of 13 January 2006,
Komninou and Others v Commission (T-42/04), shall be borne in
the manner set out in paragraph 2 of the operative part of that
order.

non-member country with which no agreement on preferential
tariff treatment is in force

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 216 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as
amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, applies to
the inward processing operations referred to in Article 115(1)(b) of
that regulation in which the compensating products have been
exported outside the European Community prior to importation of
import goods;

(1) OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October
2007 (reference
a preliminary ruling from the
Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy)) —
Agrover Srl v Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di
Genova

for

(Case C-173/06) (1)

(Community Customs Code — Inward processing — Associa-
tion agreement — Prior exportation of rice to a non-member
country bound by a preferential
customs agreement —
Article 216 of the Customs Code — Subsequent recovery of
import duties — Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code)

(2007/C 315/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrover Srl

Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria regionale di
Genova — Interpretation of Articles 216 and 220 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing
the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) —
Rice exported under the inward processing procedure to a non-
member country with which an agreement on preferential
tariff treatment is in force — Application of customs duties at
the time of importation of the compensating product from a

in the accounts of

import duties, pursuant

2) Where, at the time of discharge of an inward processing operation
(suspension system) with equivalent compensation and prior expor-
tation, the competent authorities have not contested, on the basis of
Article 216 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regu-
lation No 2700/2000, the exemption from import duties of the
goods of non-member country origin, they must waive subsequent
entry
to
those
Article 220(2)(b) of that regulation, if three cumulative conditions
are fulfilled. First, it is necessary that those duties were not levied
as a result of an error on the part of the competent authorities
themselves, secondly, that that error was such that it could not
reasonably have been detected by a person liable for payment acting
in good faith and, finally, that that person complied with all the
provisions laid down by the legislation in force as regards the
customs declaration. It is for the national court to assess whether
that is the case in the circumstances in the main proceedings, on
the basis of all the concrete aspects of the case before it, and in par-
ticular the evidence adduced for that purpose by the applicant in
the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
Suprema di Cassazione — Italy) — Ministero delle Finanze
v CO.GE.P. Srl

(Case C-174/06) (1)

(Sixth Directive — VAT — Exempted transactions — Leasing
or letting of immovable property — Property owned by the
State)

(2007/C 315/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/15

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministero delle Finanze

Defendant: CO.GE.P. Srl

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassa-
zione — Interpretation of Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Direc-
tive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
laws of
taxes —
the Member States relating to turnover
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption for the letting of
immovable property — Concession in respect of use of prop-
erty owned by the State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(b) of the 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a legal rela-
tionship such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a
person has been granted the right to occupy and use, including exclu-
sively, public property, namely areas of State maritime property, for a
specified period and against payment,
is covered by the concept of
‘leasing or letting of immovable property’ within the meaning of that
Article.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.

Applicant: Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (KommAustria)

Defendant: Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundeskommunikations-
senat — Interpretation of Article 1(c) and (f) of Council Direc-
tive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of
certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administra-
tive Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of televi-
sion broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended
by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60) — Television
broadcast offering viewers the opportunity to participate in a
prize game by means of dialling a special telephone number —
Definition of ‘television advertising’ and ‘teleshopping’

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper
construction of Article 1 of Council Directive
89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provi-
sions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in
Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activ-
ities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 30 June 1997, a broadcast or part of a broad-
cast during which a television broadcaster offers viewers the opportunity
to participate in a prize game by means of immediately dialling a
premium rate telephone number, and thus in return for payment,

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 October
a preliminary ruling from the
2007 (reference
Bundeskommunikationssenat
(Austria)) — Kommunika-
tionsbehörde Austria (KommAustria) v Österreichischer
Rundfunk (ORF)

for

(Case C-195/06) (1)

— is covered by the definition given by Article 1(f) of teleshopping if
that broadcast or part of a broadcast represents a real offer of
services having regard to the purpose of the broadcast of which the
game forms part, the significance of the game within the broadcast
in terms of time and of anticipated economic effects in relation to
those expected in respect of that broadcast as a whole and also to
the type of questions which the candidates are asked;

(Freedom to provide services — Television broadcasting
activities — Directives 89/552/EEC and 97/36/EC — Defini-
tion of ‘teleshopping’ and ‘television advertising’ — Prize
game)

(2007/C 315/24)

Language of the case: German

— is covered by the definition given by Article 1(c) of television adver-
tising if, on the basis of the purpose and content of that game and
the circumstances in which the prizes to be won are presented, the
game consists of an announcement which seeks
to encourage
viewers to buy the goods and services presented as prizes to be won
or seeks to promote the merits of the programmes of the broad-
caster in question indirectly in the form of self-promotion.

(1) OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.

Referring court

Bundeskommunikationssenat