Case C-291/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten — Sweden) — Kollektivavtalsstiftelsen TRR Trygghetsrådet v Skatteverket (VAT — Place of taxable transactions — Place of supply for tax purposes — Service supplier established in a Member State other than that in which the customer is established — Status of taxable person — Services supplied to a national foundation carrying out both economic and non-economic activities)
Date: 2008-11-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, consultancy, interpretation of the law, provision of services, tax harmonisation

C 327/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.12.2008

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Interpre-
tation of Articles 1a, 291 and 297 of 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) — Concepts of ‘transfer of goods within the Community’,
‘person importing the goods or having them imported for free
circulation’ and ‘transferee’.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 291(1) of 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 Com-
munity Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation
No 89/97 of 20 January 1997, must be interpreted as meaning
that the concept of ‘person importing the goods or having them
imported for free circulation’ contained therein refers to the person
for whom the goods are destined and who intends to assign them
to the prescribed end-use,
irrespective of whether he makes the
customs declaration himself or has that done by a representative
within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code. That concept does not refer to the representative of
that person before the customs authorities, disregarding those cases
in which that person is deemed to act in his own name and on his
own behalf pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of
Regulation No 2913/92 and who must therefore be considered an
importer.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 November
2008 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the
Regeringsrätten — Sweden) — Kollektivavtalsstiftelsen
TRR Trygghetsrådet v Skatteverket

(Case C-291/07) (1)

(VAT — Place of taxable transactions — Place of supply for
tax purposes — Service supplier established in a Member
State other than that in which the customer is established —
Status of taxable person — Services supplied to a national
foundation carrying out both economic and non-economic
activities)

(2008/C 327/06)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Regeringsrätten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kollektivavtalsstiftelsen TRR Trygghetsrådet

Defendant: Skatteverket

Re:

2. Article 297(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regu-
lation No 89/97, must be interpreted as meaning that there has
been no transfer of goods within the Community in a situation
where goods are imported into Belgium then transported to the
Netherlands, if the person authorised acts on behalf of the ultimate
importer, which is for the national court to ascertain. The mere fact
that the goods were imported into and cleared through customs in
Belgium then transported to the Netherlands is irrelevant to the
establishment of the existence of a transfer within the meaning of
that provision. Where goods are transferred, the transferee must
hold an authorisation issued in accordance with Article 291 of
that regulation.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regeringsrätten — Inter-
pretation of Articles 9(2)(e) and 21(1)(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) and of Articles 56(1)(c) and 196 of
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the
common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) —
National foundation which carries out both economic and other
activities, using consultancy services supplied by a supplier
established in another Member State in the context of its activ-
ities which do not fall within the scope of application of the
Directive

3. Article 297(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regu-
lation No 89/97, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept
of ‘transferee’ contained therein does not refer to a customs agent
who carries out customs formalities on behalf of the importer.

(1) OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2)(e) 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 1999/59/EC of
17 June 1999,
of Council Directive
2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of
value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where the
customer for consultancy services supplied by a taxable person estab-
lished in another Member State carries out both an economic activity

and Article 56(1)(c)

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/5

and an activity which falls outside the scope of those directives, that
customer is to be regarded as a taxable person even where the supply is
used solely for the purposes of the latter activity.

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Directive 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain
dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the
Community cannot be interpreted as allowing the Member States, once
programmes to reduce water pollution including environmental quality
standards have been adopted under that article, to introduce a declara-
tory scheme, in respect of facilities regarded as being low-polluting in
nature, subject to a reference to those standards and a right for the
administrative authority to object to the commencement of the opera-
tions or to impose limits on discharges specific to the facility concerned.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil
d'État — France) — Association nationale pour
la
protection des eaux et rivières — TOS v Ministère de
l'écologie, du développement et de l'aménagement durables

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

(Case C-381/07) (1)

of

the

aquatic

environment — Directive
(Pollution
2006/11/EC — Article 6 — Dangerous
substances —
Discharges — Prior authorisation — Fixing of emission stan-
dards — Declaratory scheme — Fish farms)

(2008/C 327/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et
rivières — TOS

Defendant: Ministère de l'écologie, du développement et de
l'aménagement durables

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État — Interpre-
tation of Article 6 of Directive 2006/11/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollu-
tion caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the
aquatic environment of the Community (OJ 2006 L 64, p. 52)
laying down emission stan-
— Need for prior authorisation,
dards,
into water which may contain
for all discharges
dangerous substances — Compatibility of national rules repla-
cing prior authorisation with a mere declaratory scheme in
respect of fish farms coupled, however, with a reference to the
applicable environmental quality standards and a right for the
competent administrative authority to object to the commence-
ment of operations or to impose limits on discharges specific to
the facility concerned

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November
2008 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the
European Communities

(Case C-405/07 P) (1)

(Appeal — Article 95(5) EC — Directive 98/69/EC —
Measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from
motor vehicles — Derogating national provision advancing
the lowering of the Community limit on emissions of particu-
late matter produced by certain new diesel-powered vehicles —
Commission's refusal — Specificity of the problem — Duties
of care and to state reasons)

(2008/C 327/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of
M. de Grave and C.M. Wissels, acting as Agents)

the Netherlands (represented by: D.J.

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
the European
Communities (represented by: M. Patakia, H. van Vliet and
A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 27 June 2007 of the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-182/06 Netherlands v
Commission, by which it dismissed the application for annulment
of Commission Decision 2006/372/EC of 3 May 2006
concerning draft national provisions notified by the Kingdom of
the Netherlands under Article 95(5) EC laying down limits on
the emissions of particulate matter by diesel-powered vehicles
(OJ 2006 L 142, p. 16)