Case C-25/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland)) — Alicja Sosnowska v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu (VAT — Directives 67/227/EEC and 77/388/EEC — National legislation determining conditions for repayment of excess VAT — Principles of tax neutrality and proportionality — Special derogating measures)
Date: 2008-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, goods and services, interpretation of the law, tax, tax avoidance, tax harmonisation, tax system

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/3

V

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2008 —
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

by virtue of their nature, size or location, that they are made
subject to an assessment with regard to their effects in accord-
ance with Articles 5 to 10 of Directive 85/337, and

(Case C-215/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — No assess-
ment of the environmental effects of projects within the scope
of Directive 85/337/EEC — Regularisation after the event)

(2008/C 260/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant:
Ireland
J. Connolly SC and G. Simons BL)

(represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent,

— development consents given for, and the execution of work on,
wind farm developments and associated works at Derrybrien,
County Galway, were preceded by an assessment with regard to
their environmental effects, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10
of Directive 85/337 either before or after amendment by
Directive 97/11,
its obligations
under Articles 2, 4 and 5 to 10 of that directive;

Ireland has failed to fulfil

2) Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 2, 4
and 5 to 10 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985
on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Failure
to adopt measures to ensure that projects which are within the
scope of the directive are made subject to an impact assessment

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki
Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland)) — Alicja
Sosnowska v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu
Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

(Case C-25/07) (1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Declares that, by failing to adopt all measures necessary to ensure

that:

— projects which are within the

scope of Council Directive
85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
either before or after amendment by Council Directive
97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 are, before they are executed in
whole or in part, first, considered with regard to the need for
an environmental impact assessment and, secondly, where those
projects are likely to have significant effects on the environment

(VAT — Directives 67/227/EEC and 77/388/EEC — National
legislation determining conditions for repayment of excess
VAT — Principles of tax neutrality and proportionality —
Special derogating measures)

(2008/C 260/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

C 260/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.10.2008

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alicja Sosnowska

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek
Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Adminis-
tracyjny we Wrocławiu — Interpretation of the third paragraph
of Article 5 EC, Article 2 of Council Directive 67/227/EEC of
11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member
States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition,
1967, p. 14), and Articles 18(4) and 27(1) 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 assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — National VAT legislation laying
down, in relation to the period for refunding overpayments, less
favourable rules for taxpayers beginning to carry out taxable
operations and registered as taxpayers making intra-Community
supplies — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 August 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Montpellier — France) — Criminal proceedings of extra-
dition v Ignacio Pedro Santesteban Goicoechea

(Case C-296/08 PPU) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Frame-
work Decision 2002/584/JHA — Articles 31 and 32 —
European arrest warrant and the
surrender procedures
between Member States — Possibility for the State executing
an extradition request to apply a convention adopted before
1 January 2004 but applicable in that State from a later date)

(2008/C 260/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Montpellier

Party in the main proceedings

Ignacio Pedro Santesteban Goicoechea

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

1. Article 18(4) 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, as amended by Council
Directive 2005/92/EC of 2 December 2005, and the principle of
proportionality preclude national legislation, such as that at issue
in the main proceedings, which,
in order to allow investigations
required to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, extends from 60 to
180 days, as from the date of submission of the taxable person's
VAT return, the period available to the national tax office for
repayment of excess VAT to a category of taxable persons, unless
those persons lodge a security deposit to a value of PLN 250 000;

2. Provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings do not
constitute ‘special measures for derogation’
intended to prevent
certain types of tax evasion or avoidance within the meaning of
Article 27(1) of
the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by
Directive 2005/92.

(1) OJ C 69, 24.3.2008.

for

Reference
a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de
Montpellier (France) — Interpretation of Articles 31 and 32 of
the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June
2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender proce-
dures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Power
of a Member State to use in its relations with another Member
State procedures other than those provided for in the Frame-
work Decision, in particular, those provided for by the Dublin
Convention of 27 September 1996 relating to extradition
between the Member States of the European Union — Effect of
the failure of the Member State issuing the arrest warrant to
give notification of the agreements and arrangements which it
wishes to continue to apply — Possibility, for the Member State
executing the arrest warrant, to apply a convention adopted
prior to 1 January 2004, but which entered into force in that
Member State after that date

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 31 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of
13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender
procedures between Member States must be interpreted as referring
only to the situation in which the European arrest warrant system
is applicable, which is not the case where a request for extradition
relates to acts committed before a date specified by a Member State
in a statement made pursuant to Article 32 of that Framework
Decision;