CELEX: C1999/020/28
Language: en
Date: 1999-01-23 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court, by order of that court of 15 October 1998, in the case of Commissioners of Customs and Excise against Mirror Group plc. (Case C-409/98)

23.1.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 20/17
Arcosu Srl    against Regione Autonoma della Sardegna,              2. If the answer to the questions at (1) above leads to the
Organismo     Comprensoriale No 24 della Sardegna and                   conclusion that the carnet holder has not failed to
ERSAT Ð       Ente Regionale per l'Assistenza Tecnica in                comply with the time-limit for proving the actual place
Agricoltura  on the following questions:                                where the offence or irregularity was committed:
(1) Despite the silence of the Italian legislature, is it in
     any event possible to apply the Community                          What are the requirements for furnishing satisfactory
     provisions in question to persons other than natural               proof of the place where the offence or irregularity
     persons, and in particular to companies having legal               was actually committed in the course of a transport
     personality?                                                       operation carried out under cover of a TIR carnet
                                                                        (first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Commission
(2) If an affirmative answer is given to the first question,            Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93)? May a statement by
     what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for               the carnet holder and the testimony of the lorry driver
     conferring the status of farmers practising farming as             who has effected the transport for the carnet holder be
     their main occupation on persons other than natural                sufficient proof, or can proof only be provided by
     persons and, in particular, on companies with legal                documents which unambiguously show that the
     personality?                                                       competent authorities of the other Member State have
                                                                        found that the offence or irregularity was committed
                                                                        on their territory?
(1) OJ L 93, 30.3.1985, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 218, 6.8.1991, p. 1.
                                                                    3. If the Court of Justice considers that proof of the
                                                                        actual place where the offence or irregularity was
                                                                        committed was provided in due time, and considers it
                                                                        permissible to adduce such proof in the manner
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-                     described:
finanzhof by order of that court of 6 October 1998 in the
case of Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v. SAGPOL s.c.
        Transport MicËdzynarodowy i Spedycja (PL)                       Are the third and fourth subparagraphs of
                       (Case C-406/98)                                  Article 454(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 to be
                                                                        interpreted as meaning that they also apply in cases
                        (1999/C 20/27)
                                                                        where the duties were recovered in the Member State
                                                                        where the offence or irregularity was detected, even
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                      though it has been proved within the period prescribed
the European Communities by an order of the                             by the first subparagraph of Article 454(3) and by
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 6 October                    Article 455(1) of Regulation No 2454/93 that the
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on                       offence or irregularity was actually committed in
16 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of               another Member State?
Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v. SAGPOL s.c. Transport
MicËdzynarodowy i Spedycja (PL) on the following
questions:
1. Is it compatible with the first subparagraph of
    Article 454(3) and with Article 455(1) of Commission
    Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
    for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)              Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
    No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs                   Divisional Court, by order of that court of 15 October
    Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1) if, where a                   1998, in the case of Commissioners of Customs and
    consignment which has been cleared for the external                           Excise against Mirror Group plc.
    transit procedure under a TIR carnet is not produced
    at the destination, the customs authorities of the                                    (Case C-409/98)
    Member State of dispatch set the carnet holder a
                                                                                            (1999/C 20/28)
    preclusive period of three months in which to provide
    satisfactory proof of the actual place where the offence
    or irregularity was committed, with the consequence
    that proof which is produced later leaves unaffected            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the competence of the Member State of dispatch to               European Communities by an order of the High Court of
    recover the duties?                                             Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
                                                                    Divisional Court, of 15 October 1998, which was received
    If the above question is answered in the negative:              at the Court Registry on 17 November 1998, for a
    Within what period may the carnet holder prove the              preliminary ruling in the case of Commissioners of
    actual place where the offence or irregularity has been         Customs and Excise against Mirror Group plc, on the
    committed?                                                      following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/18                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23.1.1999
1. Following the decision of the Court in Case C-63/92                Court), Luxembourg, of 7 October 1998, which was
     (Lubbock Fine & Co v. Commissioners of Customs                   received at the Court Registry on 18 November 1998, for
     and Excise), does Article 13(B)(b) of EC Council                 a preliminary ruling in the case of Angelo Ferlini v. Centre
     Directive 77/388/EEC (1) exempt from VAT a supply                Hospitalier de Luxembourg, on the following question:
     made by a person (the person') who does not initially
     have any interest in the immoveable property, where
     that person enters into an agreement for lease of that
     immovable property with a landlord and/or accepts                Having regard to the principle of non-discrimination
     the grant of a lease by the landlord in return for a sum         between nationals of Member States of the European
     of money paid by the landlord?                                   Union, a principle embodied in Articles 6 and 48 of the
                                                                      EC Treaty and, as regards freedom of movement for
                                                                      workers within the Community, in Regulation (EEC)
                                                                      No 1612/68 (1) of the Council of 15 October 1968
                                                                      freedom of movement for workers within the Community,
2. Following the decision of the Court in Case C-63/92                as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 312/76 of
     (Lubbock Fine & Co v. Commissioners of Customs                   9 February 1976 and, as regards social security, in
     and Excise), does Article 13(B)(b) of EC Council                 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (2) of the Council of 14 June
     Directive 77/388/EEC exempt from VAT a supply                    1971 on the application of social security schemes to
     made by a person (the person') who does not initially           employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
     have any interest in the immovable property, where               members of their families, as amended and updated by
     that person:                                                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 (3) of 2 June 1983,
     (a) enters into an option agreement in relation to               and
          leases of that immovable property in return for a
          sum of money being paid to the person, on terms
          that the money will remain in a special account as
          security for its obligations under the option               having regard to Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty which
          agreement; and/or                                           prohibits all agreements between undertakings, decisions
                                                                      by associations of undertakings and concerted practices
                                                                      which may affect trade between Member States and which
                                                                      have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or
     (b) subsequently exercises the options under the                 distortion of competition within the common market,
          option agreement and accepts the grant of leases
          of the immovable property in return for the
          release of the money in the special account to the
          person?                                                     are the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 31 December 1974
                                                                      (MeÂmorial A, No 95 of 31 December 1974, p. 2398), as
                                                                      amended, whose purpose is to determine, in
(1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                implementation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Code des
    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to        Assurance Sociales, benefits in kind in the event of illness
    turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:                and maternity, the scales of hospital fees as from 1 January
    uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).          1989 which are to apply to persons and organisations not
                                                                      affiliated to the national social security scheme, and the
                                                                      UCM (4) circular of 1 December 1988 on the
                                                                      apportionment of the components of flat-rate childbirth
                                                                      charges as from 1 January 1989 and the practices of the
                                                                      EHL (5), whereby it applies to persons and organisations
                                                                      not affiliated to the national social security scheme and to
                                                                      officials of the European Communities affiliated to the
                                                                      Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme uniform scales of fees for
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Eighth Chamber              medical and hospital expenses which are higher than those
of the Tribunal d'Arrondissement, Luxembourg, by order                applied to residents affiliated to the national social
of that court of 7 October 1998 in the case of Angelo                 security scheme, compatible with Community law?
         Ferlini v. Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg
                        (Case C-411/98)                               (1 ) OJ English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475.
                                                                      (2 ) OJ English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.
                         (1999/C 20/29)                               (3 ) OJ L 230, 22.8.1983, p. 6.
                                                                      (4 ) Union des Caisses de Maladie (Luxembourgeoise)
                                                                           [Luxembourg Association of Sicknes Funds].
                                                                      (5) Entente des Hôpitaux Luxembourgeois [Luxembourg
                                                                           Hospitals Group].
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Eighth
Chamber of the Tribunal d'Arrondissement (District