Case C-461/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 October 2008 — Don Bosco Onroerend Goed BV; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2008-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, building industry, interpretation of the law

C 69/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.3.2009

Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
Tübingen (Germany) lodged on 15 October 2008 — FGK
Gesellschaft für Antriebsmechanik mbH v Notar Gerhard
Schwenkel

(Case C-424/08)

(2009/C 69/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Schima and B. Sipos, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-450/08)

(2009/C 69/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Tübingen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FGK Gesellschaft für Antriebsmechanik mbH

Defendant: Notar Gerhard Schwenkel

Party Involved: President of the Landgericht Tübingen

Form of order sought

Question referred

— declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of Council Direc-
tive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of
major-accident hazards
substances,
inasmuch as the competent German authorities have failed
to draw up external emergency plans for all establishments
to which Article 9 of the said Directive applies;

involving dangerous

— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

1. Is Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
indirect taxes on the raising of capital (1)(as amended by
Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985) to be inter-
preted as meaning that the charges of a notary employed as
a civil servant for the drawing up of a notarially attested act
recording a transaction covered by that directive constitute
taxes for the purposes of that directive where, under the rele-
vant national legislation, even notaries who are civil servants
may be authorised to practise and are themselves owed the
charges arising from that act and the State, on the basis of a
general waiver, does not receive any portion of the charges
transactions covered by the
for
Directive?

the authentication of

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 249, p. 25.

Article 11(1)(c) of Directive 96/82/EC requires Member States to
ensure that, for all establishments to which Article 9 applies, the
competent authorities draw up an external emergency plan for
the measures to be taken outside the establishment. The external
emergency plans must contain not only information concerning
remedial measures on-site and off-site, but also specific informa-
tion for the public concerning the accident and the requisite
behaviour to be adopted. In addition, the information intended
for the emergency services of other Member States in the case
of a major accident which is capable of causing transboundary
effects must also appear in the external emergency plans.

The present action seeks a declaration that the Federal Republic
of Germany has
its obligations under
Article 11(1)(c) of Directive 96/82/EC, inasmuch as it has failed
to draw up external emergency plans for all establishments to
which Article 9 of the said Directive applies.

failed to fulfil

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 October 2008
— Don Bosco Onroerend Goed BV; other party:
Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-461/08)

(2009/C 69/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/17

Parties to the main proceedings

Form of order sought

Applicant: Don Bosco Onroerend Goed BV

Other Party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

1. Must Article 13B(g) in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a) of the
Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that
tax is
charged on the supply of a building which has been partly
demolished with a view to the replacement of that building
with a newly constructed building?

2. Is it relevant to the answer to that question whether it is the
vendor or the purchaser of the building who has given the
order for demolition and is charged the cost thereof, and
thus the supply is taxed only if the vendor has given the
order for demolition and is charged the cost thereof?

3. Is it relevant to the answer to the first question whether it is
the vendor or the purchaser of the building who has drawn
up the plans for the new building, and thus the supply is
taxed only if the vendor has drawn up the plans for the new
building?

4. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is tax
then levied on any supply occurring after the date on which
the demolition work actually begins or after a later date,
especially the date on which the demolition has made
substantial progress?

(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).

— declare that, by failing to adopt, in full, the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of
professional qualifications (1), or, as the case may be, by
failing to fully inform the Commission of those provisions,
the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
its obligations
under that directive;

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The prescribed period for implementing the directive expired on
20 October 2007.

(1) OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.

Appeal brought on 18 November 2008 by Fornaci Laterizi
Danesi SpA against the judgment delivered on 9 September
2008 in Case T-224/08 Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-498/08 P)

(2009/C 69/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Action brought on 6 November 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Republic of Austria

Parties

(Case C-477/08)

(2009/C 69/30)

Appellant: Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA (represented by: M. Salvi,
L. de Nora, M. Manganiello, P. Rivetta, lawyers)

Language of the case: German

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Parties

Form of order sought

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Adam, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

— Set aside the order of 9 September 2008 of the Court of
First
in Case T-224/08, notified by fax of
12 September 2008 and refer the case back to the Court of
First Instance for judgment on the merits;

Instance