CELEX: C1995/137/22
Language: en
Date: 1995-06-03 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 12 October 1994 in the case of John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt Köln-West (Case C-85/95)

3 . 6 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 137/ 11
After that period had expired with no communication from              requisite measures, the Commission decided to bring these
the Greek Government concerning the adoption of the                   proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty .
requisite measures, the Commission decided to bring these
proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty.                          H OJ No L 110 , 28 . 4 . 1992 , p . 52 .
(') OJ No L 166 , 28 . 6 . 1991 , p . 77 .
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
                                                                      Dublin, by order of that court of 12 February 1995 , in the
                                                                      case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS
                                                                      against Minister for Transport, Energy and
                                                                          Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General
Action brought on 20 March 1995 by the Commission of                                           ( Case C-84/95 )
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                                           ( 95/C 137/21 )
                         ( Case C-83/95 )
                           ( 95/C 137/20 )                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
                                                                      Dublin, of 12 February 1995 , which was received at the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before            Court Registry on 20 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   in the case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS
20 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                       against     Minister         for    Transport, Energy       and
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal               Communications , Ireland and the Attorney General, on the
Adviser of the Commission, with an address for service in             following question:
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the
Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                Is Article 8 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 990/93 of
                                                                      26 April 1993 concerning trade between the European
                                                                      Economic Community and the Federal Republic of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro ) (') to be construed as
                                                                      applying to an aircraft which is owned by an undertaking
1 . declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its       the majority or controlling interest in which is held by an
     obligations under the EEC Treaty because it omitted to           undertaking in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia
     bring into force and to communicate to the Commission            and Montenegro ) where such aircraft has been leased by the
     within the requisite time limit the laws, regulations and        owner for a term of four years from the 22 April 1992 to an
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with               undertaking the majority or controlling interest in which is
     Council Directive 92/30/EEC of 6 April 1992 on the               not held by a person or undertaking in or operating from the
     supervision of credit institutions on a consolidated             said Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia and
     basis ( ! );                                                     Montenegro )?
2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                    (') OJ No L 102 , 28 . 4 . 1993 , p . 14 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Article 9 of Directive 92/30/EEC provides that the Member             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and              Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 12 October 1994
administrative decisions necessary to comply with the                    in the case of John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt Koln-West
Directive before 1 January 1993 and that they are forthwith                                      Case C-85/95 )
to notify the Commission thereof.
                                                                                                 ( 95 /C 137/22 )
Having received no communication from the Greek
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Government concerning measures adopted in order to
                                                                      European Communities by*an order of the Bundesfinanzhof
incorporate the abovementioned Directive into the Greek               ( Federal Finance Court) of 12 October 1994 , which was
legal order, the Commission on 12 March 1993 addressed
                                                                      received at the Court Registry on 20 March 1995 , for a
to the Government in question a formal letter before action .
Since the Greek Government did not reply to that letter, the
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt
                                                                      Koln-West, on the following questions:
Commission on 4 July 1994 issued a reasoned opinion
giving the Greek Government a period of two months                    1 . Is an invoice within the meaning of Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of
within which to comply with the Directive .                                the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC ( ! ) only the original,
                                                                           that is to say, the original copy of the statement of
After that period had expired with no communication from                   account, or are carbon copies, duplicates or photocopies
the Greek Government concerning the adoption of the                        also to be regarded as being invoices in that sense ?
 ---pagebreak--- No C 137/ 12            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     3 . 6 . 95
2 . Does the term 'hold ' within the meaning of                             ( persons having such an entitlement in any other
     Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC               Member State being precluded from receiving such
     signify that the taxable person must at all times be in a              allowance ) contrary to Articles 48 ( 2 ) and 51 of the EC
     position to present the invoice to the tax authorities ?               Treaty ?
3 . Is the exercise of the right to deduct input tax precluded
     by virtue of Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth Directive
     77/388/EEC where the taxable person no longer ' holds'
     an invoice ?
( ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
                                                                        Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of
                                                                        13 March 1995 in the case of: Nuova Castelli SpA
                                                                                v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
                                                                                                ( Case C-92/95 )
                                                                                                  ( 95/C 137/24 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Juzgado de lo Social
No 2 , Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court of                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
9 March 1995 in the case of Bernardina Martinez Losada                  European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
                                                                        Genova, Sezione Prima Civile ( District Court, Genoa , First
v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de
                          Seguridad Social                              Civil Section) of 13 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 24 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
                           ( Case C-88/95 )                             on the same questions as in Cases C-47/95 , C-48/95 ,
                             ( 95/C 137/23 )                            C-49/95 , C-50/95 , C-60/95 and C-81 /95 (*).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
European Communities by an order of Juzgado de lo Social
( Social Court ) No 2, Santiago de Compostela, of 9 March
 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
23 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Bernardina Martinez Losada against Instituto Nacional de
Empleo ( National Employment Institute ) and Instituto
Nacional de Seguridad Social (National Social Security
Institute ) on the following questions :                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                        Nederlanden by decision of that court of 24 March 1995 in
                                                                        the case of Saueressig GmbH 8c Co. v. Forbo-Krommenie
 1 . Must Article 67 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( in                                        BV
     its present version ) be interpreted , as regards the
     particular facts to which it is to be applied , as meaning                                 ( Case C-99/95 )
     that periods of insurance or of employment completed                                         ( 95/C 137/25
     under the legislation of any other Member State must be
     taken into account for the purposes of obtaining the
     unemployment allowance for persons over 52 years of                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     age, provided for by Article 215 ( 3 ) of Real Decreto             European Communities by decision of the Hoge Raad der
     Legislativo ( Royal Legislative Decree ) 1 /1994 of 20 June        Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
     1994, which approves the consolidated version of the               24 March 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
     Ley General de la Seguridad Social ( General Law on                on 30 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     Social Security ), to the extent to which the right to a           Saueressig GmbH & Co . v. Forbo-Krommenie BV on the
     retirement pension may be obtained on the basis of such            following questions :
     contributions, subject to age requirements , in a Member
     State other than that of the competent institution ?               1 . Does the procedure of 'preliminary examination of
                                                                            witnesses prior to the institution of proceedings' set out
2 . Can that be the case even though the worker has not                     in Article 214 et seq. of the Netherlands Code of Civil
     paid contributions in Spain or has paid contributions for              Procedure come within the scope of the Brussels
     less than one year, provided that he is entitled to a                  Convention ?
     retirement pension in any Member State ?
                                                                        2 . If the answer to Question 1 is yes : can that procedure
3 . Is the requirement that, for migrant workers to receive                 also constitute a measure within the meaning of
     the unemployment allowance available for persons of                    Article 24 of the Brussels Convention ?
     more than 52 years of age, it must be shown that, subject
     to age requirements, they are entitled to a retirement
     pension payable by the Spanish social security scheme