CELEX: C1997/387/21
Language: en
Date: 1997-12-20 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance, Nivelles (9th Chamber), by judgment of that court of 3 November 1997 in the case of Belgocodex SA v. Belgian State (Case C-381/97)

20 . 12 . 97              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 387/ 13
5 . Does the national court ( sitting in interlocutory                    8 . Is the answer to Question 7 different according to
     proceedings ) have jurisdiction, in circumstances such                     whether or not the content of the proposed decision is
     as those described in Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/                      consistent with higher rules of Community law ?
     89 Zuckerfabrik Siiderdithmarschen and Others and
     subsequent cases, to make an interim order requiring a
     Member State not to participate ( either actively or
     passively ) in the decision-making process within the
     Council of Ministers in the context of the second
     paragraph of Article 136 ?                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                          Premiere Instance, Nivelles ( 9th Chamber), by judgment of
6 . On the assumption that assessment of the                              that court of 3 November 1997 in the case of Belgocodex
     circumstances referred to in Question 5 is a matter for                                         SA v. Belgian State
     the Court of Justice, rather than the national court,                                            ( Case C-381 /97 )
     are the circumstances described in the judgment of                                                 ( 97/C 387/21 )
     17 October 1997 — page 7, first full paragraph, ('On
     the basis of various factors . . .') up to and including             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the second full paragraph on page 8 ( ending '. . .                  European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
     excessively detrimental to the interests of the                      Premiere Instance ( Court of First Instance ), Nivelles ( 9th
     Community') — also in the light of the further                       Chamber), of 3 November 1997, which was received at
     reasoning in that judgment and in the judgment of                    the Court Registry on 7 November 1997, for a
     6 October 1997, such as to justify the injunction                    preliminary ruling in the case of Belgocodex SA v. Belgian
     referred to in Question 5 ?                                          State on the following questions :
7 . Does Article 5 of the EC Treaty — and more                            Does Article 2 of the First Council Directive 67/227/EEC
     specifically the principle of Community cooperation                  of 11 April 1967 (') on the harmonisation of legislation of
     with      other    Member       States  contained   therein —        Member States concerning turnover taxes, which
     preclude such an injunction by the court concerning                  establishes the principle of a common system of value
     the future participation of that Member State in the                  added tax, prevent a Member State — in this case Belgium
      decision-making process in that context, if                         — which has availed itself of the possibility provided for
                                                                           by Article 13 ( C ) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/
      (a ) the Member State voted in favour of the Council                 EEC of 17 May 1977 (2 ) on the harmonization of
            proposal at issue, notwithstanding that it was                 legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes —
            aware that interlocutory proceedings were in                   Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
            progress at the time concerning its voting                     assessment, and has thus given its taxpayers the right to
            intentions in the European Council of ' Ministers              opt for taxation of certain lettings of immovable property,
            and                                                            from abolishing that right of option and thus
                                                                           reintroducing the exemption to its full extent in
      ( b ) those ( initial ) interlocutory proceedings culminated         subsequent legislation ?
            in such an injunction a few hours after the
            Member       State    had    voted  in  favour   of  the       (') OJ , English Special Edition 1967, p . 14 ; EE 09 FI, p . 3 .
            proposal ?                                                     (2 ) OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 ; EE 09 FI, p . 54 .