Case C-538/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (The Netherlands) lodged on 4 December 2008 — X Holding BV v Minister van Financiën
Date: 2008-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Netherlands, VAT, interpretation of the law, means of transport

C 55/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.3.2009

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 December 2008 —
Sylvia Bienek v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-525/08)

(2009/C 55/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sylvia Bienek

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Questions referred

1. Does a change in reservation to another flight constitute a
situation covered by Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC)
No 261/2004 of
the
Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on
compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of
denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights,
and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1)?

the European Parliament and of

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

Must that provision also be applied to a change in reserva-
tion which was not instigated by the air carrier, but by the
tour operator alone?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
lodged on 4 December
Nederlanden (The Netherlands)

2008 — X Holding BV v Minister van Financiën

(Case C-538/08)

(2009/C 55/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X Holding BV

Respondent: Minister van Financiën

Questions referred

1. Must Article 11(4) of

the

Second Directive (1)

and
the Sixth Directive (2) be interpreted as
Article 17(6) of
meaning that a Member State wishing to take advantage of
the possibility for which those provisions provide of
(retaining) the exclusion of deduction with respect to cate-
gories of expenditure which are described as ‘providing the
opportunity for private transport’ has satisfied the condition
of designating a category of adequately definable goods and
services?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, do
Article 6(2) and Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth Directive
leave room for national legislation such as that at issue in
the proceedings, which was adopted before that Directive
entered into force and under which a taxable person may
not deduct in full the VAT paid on the acquisition of certain
goods and services which are used partly for business
purposes and partly for private purposes of the staff, but
may do so only to the extent that the VAT is attributable to
use for business purposes?

(1) Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance
against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ L 8,
p. 17).

(2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ L 145, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
lodged on 4 December 2008 —
Gerichtshof
FIAG Finanzierungsberatung-
Fokus

(Austria)
Invest AG v

Immobilientreuhand und Anlageberatung GmbH (FIAG)

(Case C-541/08)

(2009/C 55/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fokus Invest AG

Defendant:
und Anlageberatung GmbH (FIAG)

FIAG Finanzierungsberatung-Immobilientreuhand