Case C-384/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof) — Wienstrom GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit (State aid — Article 88(3) EC — Aid declared compatible with the common market — Dispute between the aid recipient and the national authorities concerning the amount of aid unlawfully put into effect — Role of the national court)
Date: 2008-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid system, control of State aid, interpretation of the law

C 44/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2009

3. The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 is to be
interpreted as meaning that when a Turkish worker has obtained
the status of political refugee on the basis of false statements, the
rights that a member of his family derives from that provision
cannot be called into to question if the latter, on the date on which
the residence permit issued to that worker is withdrawn, fulfils the
conditions laid down therein.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo
Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Sopropé —
Organizações de Calçado Lda v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-349/07) (1)

committed a customs offence in which to submit its observations
complies in principle with the requirements of Community law.

2. It is for the national court before which the case has been brought
to ascertain, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case,
whether
importer made it
possible for it to be given a proper hearing by the customs authori-
ties.

the period actually allowed to that

3. The national court must also ascertain whether, in the light of the
period which elapsed between the
time when the authorities
concerned received the importer's observations and the date on
which they took their decision, they can be deemed to have taken
due account of the observations sent to them.

(1) OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

(Community Customs Code — Principle of respect for the
rights of the defence — Post-clearance recovery of customs
import duties)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwal-
tungsgerichtshof) — Wienstrom GmbH v Bundesminister
für Wirtschaft und Arbeit

(2009/C 44/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sopropé — Organizações de Calçado Lda

Respondent: Fazenda Pública

Intervening party: Ministério Público

Re:

(Case C-384/07) (1)

(State aid — Article 88(3) EC — Aid declared compatible
with the common market — Dispute between the aid recipient
and the national authorities concerning the amount of aid
unlawfully put into effect — Role of the national court)

(2009/C 44/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wienstrom GmbH

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Admin-
istrativo — Compatibility with Community law and the prin-
ciple of the rights of the defence of national provisions of fiscal
administrative procedure concerning the periods for the exercise
of the taxpayer's right to a hearing — Administrative procedure
for the post-clearance payment of import duties on goods from
the far east

Operative part of the judgment

1. With regard to recovery of a customs debt

for the purpose of
effecting post-clearance recovery of customs import duties, a period
of 8 to 15 days allowed to an importer suspected of having

Defendant: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof —
Interpretation of Article 88(3) EC — State aid scheme put into
effect without prior notification to the Commission, the final
amended version of which, however, following its notification,
was declared compatible with the common market, without any
express negative decision having been taken with regard to the
previous non-notified version — Obligations of national courts
deriving from the Commission's decision

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/17

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The prohibition on putting State aid into effect laid down in the last
sentence of Article 88(3) EC does not require a national court, in a
situation such as that in the main proceedings, to dismiss an action
brought by a State aid recipient concerning the amount of that State
aid allegedly due in respect of a period predating a decision of the
the European Communities finding that aid to be
Commission of
compatible with the common market.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December
2008 (reference
a preliminary ruling from the
Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie — Republic
of Poland) — Magoora sp. zoo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej
w Krakowie

for

(Case C-414/07) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17(2) and (6) — National
legislation — Deduction of VAT on the purchase of fuel for
certain vehicles irrespective of the purpose for which they are
used — Effective restriction on deductions — Exclusions laid
down by national law when the directive entered into force)

(2009/C 44/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Magoora sp. zoo

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Adminis-
tracyjny w Krakowie — Interpretation of Article 17(2) and (6)
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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — National rules
excluding the right
for
certain vehicles irrespective of the purpose (business or private)
for which the vehicle concerned is used — Amendment of the
criteria governing vehicles covered by the exclusion, resulting in
a de facto restriction of the scope of the right to deduct in
comparison with the period before Directive 77/388 entered
into force in the Member State concerned

tax on purchases of

to deduct

fuel

The second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Council Direc-
tive 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 precludes a Member State
from repealing in their entirety, when that directive is transposed into
national law, national provisions concerning restrictions on the right to
deduct input tax on purchases of fuel for vehicles used for a taxable
activity, by replacing, on the date on which that directive entered into
force on its territory, those provisions by provisions laying down new
criteria in that regard, if — which is for the national court to deter-
mine — the latter provisions have the effect of extending the scope of
those restrictions. It precludes,
in any event, a Member State from
subsequently amending its legislation which entered into force on that
date, so as to extend the scope of those restrictions as compared with
the situation existing prior to that date.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 December
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
und Markensenat — Austria) — Verein
Patent-
v Bundesvereinigung Kameradschaft
Radetzky-Orden

‘Feldmarschall Radetzky’

(Case C-442/07) (1)

(Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 12 —
Revocation — Marks registered by a non-profit-making asso-
ciation — Concept of ‘genuine use’ of a trade mark —
Charitable activities)

(2009/C 44/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Patent- und Markensenat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verein Radetzky-Orden

Defendant: Bundesvereinigung Kameradschaft
Radetzky’

‘Feldmarschall

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Patent- und
Markensenat — Interpretation of Article 12(1) of First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989
L 40, p. 1) — Trade marks used on business papers, writing