CELEX: C2003/213/30
Language: en
Date: 2003-09-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-291/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court dated 30 June 2003, in the case of MyTravel plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

6.9.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 213/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     impact assessment being carried out, it appears when
                                                                                approval of reserved matters is sought that the project
Annul or vary Commission Decision C(2003) 1539 in connec-                       may have significant effects on the environment by virtue
tion with the exclusion from Community financing of certain                     inter alia of its nature, size or location (article 2(1) of the
expenditure by the Member States in the context of the EAGGF                    Directive)?
— Guarantee section, in regard to the chapter concerning
financial corrections imposed on the Hellenic Republic in the            (3) In circumstances where:
sector of arable cultivation for the financial years 2000 and
2001.
                                                                                (a)   national planning law provides for the grant of
                                                                                      outline planning permission at an initial stage of the
                                                                                      planning process and requires consideration by the
                                                                                      competent authority at that stage as to whether an
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                      environmental impact assessment is required for
                                                                                      purposes of the Directive; and
—     Misinterpretation of provisions;
—     Misappraisal of factual circumstances;                                    (b) the competent authority then determines that it is
                                                                                      unnecessary to carry out an environmental impact
                                                                                      assessment and grants outline planning permission
—     Defective statement of reasons;
                                                                                      subject to conditions reserving specified matters for
                                                                                      later approval; and
—     Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 5(2)(c)
      of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 in conjunction with
      Document VI/5330/97;                                                      (c)   that decision can then be challenged in the national
                                                                                      courts;
—     Misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 6 and 7
      of Regulation No 3508/92.                                                 may national law, consistently with the Directive, pre-
                                                                                clude a competent authority from requiring that an
                                                                                environmental impact assessment be carried out at a later
                                                                                stage of the planning process?
                                                                         (1 ) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
                                                                              of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords                      environment (OJ L 175, 05.07.1985, p. 40).
by order of that court dated 30 June 2003, in the case of
Regina against London Borough of Bromley, ex parte
                       Diane Barker (FC)
                        (Case C-290/03)
                        (2003/C 213/29)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
                                                                         Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of
                                                                         that court dated 30 June 2003, in the case of MyTravel plc
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                 against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
dated 30 June 2003, which was received at the Court Registry
on 3 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Regina                                      (Case C-291/03)
and London Borough of Bromley, ex parte Diane Barker (FC)
on the following questions:
                                                                                                    (2003/C 213/30)
(1) Is identification of ‘the decision of the competent auth-
      ority or authorities which entitles the developer to
      proceed with the project’ (article 1(2) of Directive 85/
      337/EEC (1) (‘the Directive’)) exclusively a matter for the
      national court applying national law?                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by direction of the VAT and Duties
(2) Does the Directive require an environmental impact                   Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, dated 30 June 2003,
      assessment to be carried out if, following the grant of            which was received at the Court Registry on 4 July 2003, for a
      outline planning permission subject to conditions that             preliminary ruling in the case of MyTravel plc and Com-
      reserved matters be approved, without an environmental             missioners of Customs and Excise on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/18                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.9.2003
On a correct interpretation of article 26 of the Sixth Direc-               by the tour operator on seat-only sales in the financial year in
tive ( 1) on value added tax and of the judgment of the Court of            question or (b) the average revenue achieved by the tour
Justice in Cases C-308/96 and C-94/97 Madgett and Baldwin                   operator on seat-only sales in the financial year in question?
[1998] ECR I-6229:
                                                                            (1 ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
I.     In what, if any, circumstances is it open to a tour                       harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
       operator, which has completed its value added tax return                  turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
       for a financial year using the actual cost method which                   basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
       was the only method laid down in national legislation
       implementing the Directive, subsequently to recalculate
       its VAT liability partly in accordance with the market
       value method described in paragraph 46 of that judg-
       ment?
       (1) In particular may such a tour operator use the
             market value selectively in relation to different              Action brought on 4 July 2003 by the Commission of the
             financial years, and if so, in what circumstances?               European Communities against the Republic of Finland
       (2) In a case where the tour operator sells some of the                                          (Case C-292/03)
             in-house components of its packages to the public
             on a non-package basis (in this case flights) but does
             not sell other in-house components of some of its                                          (2003/C 213/31)
             packages to the public on a non-package basis
             (in this case cruises and campsites) can the tour
             operator:
                                                                            An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
             (a)   use the market value method in relation to               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 July
                   those packages (being the vast majority) where           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                   it can determine the value of all its in-house           represented by M. Konstantinidis and P. Aalto, with an address
                   supplies (in this case flights) by reference to          for service in Luxembourg.
                   sales it has made to the public on a non-
                   package basis;
                                                                            The Commission claims that the Court should:
             (b)   in cases where the package includes in-house
                   elements which the tour operator does not sell           1.     Declare under Article 226 of the Treaty establishing the
                   to the public on a non-package basis (in this                   European Union that, by failing to adopt the laws,
                   case camp sites and cruises), can the tour                      regulations and administrative measures to comply with
                   operator use the market value method to                         Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and
                   determine the value of those in-house supplies                  of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life
                   that it does sell to the public (in this case the               vehicles (1) or in any event in failing to inform the
                   flights) where it has not been possible to                      Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed
                   establish a market value for other parts of the                 to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
                   package.
                                                                            2.     Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs of the
                                                                                   proceedings.
       (3) Must the use of the combination of methods be
             (a) simpler or (b) significantly simpler or (c) not
             significantly more complicated
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
       (4) Must the market value method produce the same,
             or a very similar, VAT liability as does the cost-
             based method?                                                  The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
                                                                            21 April 2002.
Is it possible in the circumstances of the present case to                  (1 ) OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34.
identify that part of the in-house service relating to flights sold
as part of a holiday package by taking either (a) the average
cost of an airline seat increased by the average margin achieved