CELEX: C1997/131/22
Language: en
Date: 1997-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, by direction of that court of 26 February 1997, in the case of T. P. Madgett and R. M. Baldwin trading as Howden Court Hotel against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Case C-94/97)

26 . 4 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 131 /9
Community, concerning organization of specific training               1 . On the proper interpretation of Article 26 , where in a
in general medical practice and other provisions relating                   single transaction a tour operator provides a service to the
to universities :                                                           traveller part of which is supplied to the tour operator by
                                                                            other taxable persons ('bought in') and part of which is
                                                                            supplied by the tour operator from its own resources ('in­
1 . Must Article 31 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Council Directive 93/16/                 house'), on what basis is the tour operator's margin under
      EEC f 1 ) of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free                      Article 26 (2 ) to be calculated ?
      movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of
      their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
      formal qualifications, in conjunction with Articles 3           2 . Is Article 26 to be interpreted as :
      and 23 and with the other provisions of Title IV of
      that Directive, be interpreted as meaning that the                    ( a ) requiring the apportionment of the total amount
      specific training in general medical practice cannot                        received by the tour operator from the traveller
      begin until after the person concerned has obtained,                        between bought in and in-house supplies by
      after at least six years' study, the diploma referred to                    reference to the costs of the components; or
      in Article 3 ?
                                                                            ( b ) as authorizing Member States to require
2 . Must Article 31 ( 1 ) ( d) of that Directive be interpreted                   apportionment by reference to such costs ( i )
      as meaning that the 'personal participation of the                          generally or ( ii ) in the case of operations of the
      trainee     in    the professional       activities   and                   kind in the issue in the present case;
      responsibilities of the persons with whom he works'
      requires the trainee to pursue the activities of a doctor                   or
      which are reserved to holders of the diplomas required
      by Articles 2 and 3 of the Directive ?
                                                                            (c ) as leaving such apportionment to be made in
                                                                                  accordance with the normal principles for
3 . If so, must that same provision be interpreted as                             determining the taxable amount under Article 1 1 ?
      meaning that the trainee should pursue the activities of
      a doctor from the beginning of the specific training in         f 1 ) OJNoL 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .
      general medical practice, whether that training is the
      full-time training laid down by Article 31 of the
      Directive or the part-time training laid down by
      Article 34 ?
H OJ NoL 165 , 7. 7. 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                      Action brought on 6 March 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                                  ( Case C-96/97)
                                                                                                    ( 97/C 131/23 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunal, by direction of that court of 26 February 1997,             An action against the French Republic was brought before
in the case of T. R Madgett and R. M. Baldwin trading as              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Howden Court Hotel against the Commissioners of                       6 March 1997 by tfie Commission of the European
                       Customs and Excise                             Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright and
                                                                      Jean-Francois Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address
                          ( Case C-94/97)                             for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez
                            ( 97/C 131 /22                            de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by direction of the VAT and
 Duties Tribunal of 26 February 1997, which was received              — declare that, by failing to notify or to bring into force
 at the Court Registry on 3 March 1997, for a preliminary                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
 ruling in the case of T. R Madgett and R. M. Baldwin                        necessary in order to comply with Commission
 trading as Howden Court Hotel against the                                   Directive 91 /412/EEC of 23 July 1991 laying down
 Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the following                       the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing
 questions :                                                                 practice for veterinary medicinal products ( 1 ), the
                                                                             French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                             under that Directive,
 If it is determined in Case C-308/96 that the provisions of
 Article 26 of the Sixth VAT Directive ( J ) apply to
 operations of the kind in issue in the present case:                  — order the French Republic to pay the costs .