. FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1978 SHE CLAIMED EXEMPTION FROM TURNOVER TAX ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLES 1 AND 13 B ( D ) 1 . OF THE SIXTH DIRECTIVE .
5 THE FINANZAMT LEER REJECTED THAT CLAIM AND ASSESSED THE PLAINTIFF ' S TRANSACTIONS AT THE NORMAL RATE , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN AMENDED AT THE TIME .
6 RELYING UPON THE ABOVE-MENTIONED JUDGMENTS , THE PLAINTIFF LODGED AN APPEAL AGAINST THAT DECISION WITH THE FINANZGERICHT WHICH STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS AND REFERRED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
' ' IN THE PERIOD FROM 1 JANUARY 1978 TO 30 JUNE 1978 , WAS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE PROVISION CONCERNING THE EXEMPTION FROM TURNOVER TAX OF TRANSACTIONS CONSISTING OF THE NEGOTIATION OF CREDIT CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 13 B ( D ) 1 OF THE SIXTH COUNCIL DIRECTIVE , 77/388/EEC , OF 17 MAY 1977 ON THE HARMONIZATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO TURNOVER TAXES - COMMON SYSTEM OF VALUE-ADDED TAX : UNIFORM BASIS OF ASSESSMENT TO BE RELIED UPON , IN THE ABSENCE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT DIRECTIVE , BY A CREDIT NEGOTIATOR WHERE HE HAD REFRAINED FROM PASSING THAT TAX ON TO PERSONS FOLLOWING HIM IN THE CHAIN OF SUPPLY , EVEN THOUGH UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THE NINTH COUNCIL DIRECTIVE , 78/583/EEC , OF 26 JUNE 1978 ON THE HARMONIZATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO TURNOVER TAXES , THE MEMBER STATES REFERRED TO IN THAT ARTICLE WERE AUTHORIZED TO IMPLEMENT DIRECTIVE 77/388/EEC BY 1 JANUARY 1979 AT THE LATEST?
' '
7 IN ORDER TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THE FIRST PLACE TO CONSIDER THE LEGAL POSITION OF ECONOMIC OPERATORS IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1978 , THAT IS TO SAY BEFORE THE NINTH DIRECTIVE TOOK EFFECT FOLLOWING ITS NOTIFICATION TO THE MEMBER STATES TO WHICH IT WAS ADDRESSED .
8 DURING THAT PERIOD , ECONOMIC OPERATORS ESTABLISHED IN ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES WHICH HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE OBLIGATION TO BRING THEIR LEGISLATION INTO LINE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SIXTH DIRECTIVE BEFORE 1 JANUARY 1978 WERE CONFRONTED WITH A FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTIVE WITH THE PROBABLE RESULT THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES WOULD NOT APPLY THE EXEMPTIONS PROVIDED FOR BY THE DIRECTIVE FOR THE BENEFIT OF CERTAIN OF THOSE OPERATORS . THE SITUATION WAS IDENTICAL TO THAT WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE ABOVE-MENTIONED JUDGMENTS OF 19 JANUARY 1982 AND 10 JUNE 1982 .
9 IT FOLLOWS THAT , DURING THE SAID PERIOD , A CREDIT NEGOTIATOR WHO HAD NOT PASSED ON THE TAX TO PERSONS FOLLOWING HIM IN THE CHAIN OF SUPPLY WAS JUSTIFIED IN RELYING ON THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 13 B ( D ) 1 OF THE SIXTH DIRECTIVE AND A MEMBER STATE WHICH HAD FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS COULD NOT CLAIM , AS AGAINST THAT PERSON , THAT IT