CELEX: C2000/079/35
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-20/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Session, Scotland, by request of that Court of 11 January 2000, in the case of Booker Aquaculture Limited, trading as Marine Harvest McConnell, against the Scottish Ministers

C 79/18                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
According to the Commission, it cannot be stated that the                   — should a deduction be allowed by way of general
mere presence of vegetable fats changes the nature of the                       expenses?
product to the extent that the name ‘chocolate’ could create
confusion as to the essential nature of the product itself.
                                                                       (1) Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                           harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
The requirement that the name of the product be changed (to                turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
its detriment) must be precluded inasmuch as it seriously                  basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1).
prejudices recognition of the product as part of a category to
which it rightfully belongs. As such, it is a disproportionate
measure with regard to the objective pursued, namely con-
sumer information.
(1) OJ 1973 L 228, p. 23.                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                       Asti — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari, by
                                                                       order of 17 December 1999 in the criminal proceedings
                                                                                 pending before it against Maurizio Perino
                                                                                                 (Case C-18/00)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admin-                                        (2000/C 79/34)
istratif de Lille (4ème Chambre) by judgment of that court
of 6 January 2000 in the case of Cibo Participations S.A.              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
against Directeur Régional des Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Ca-               European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Asti
                                 lais                                  (District Court, Asti) of 17 December 1999, received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 20 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                           (Case C-16/00)                              in the criminal proceedings pending against Maurizio Perino
                                                                       on the following question:
                           (2000/C 79/33)
                                                                       Does Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (1)
                                                                       permit the storage of waste for submission, not only to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 operations listed in points R1 to R12 of Annex IIB, but also to
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Adminis-              another, separate phase of storage, or does the directive require
tratif de Lille (4ème Chambre) (Administrative Court, Lille)           persons storing waste to deliver it solely to a person who
(Fourth Chamber) of 6 January 2000, received at the Court              carries out operations to recover the waste?
Registry on 19 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Cibo Participations S.A. against Directeur Régional des
Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais on the following questions:               (1) Council Directive 91/156/EEC amending Directive 75/442/EEC
                                                                           on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).
1. What are the criteria for establishing ‘involvement’? Can it
     be inferred from the provision of paid services, or the
     running of a group of companies by its holding company,
     or de facto management which excludes the independence
     of the subsidiary, or some other factor?
2. Where there is ‘involvement’, does the receipt of dividends         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of
     remain outside the scope of value added tax for any reason        Session, Scotland, by request of that Court of 11 January
     other than economic activity, in that such receipts are not       2000, in the case of Booker Aquaculture Limited, trading
     the consideration for the supply of goods or services,            as Marine Harvest McConnell, against the Scottish Minis-
                                                                                                       ters
     — or, taking account of the fact that fees are incurred in
         connection with the acquisition of shares, the specific                                 (Case C-20/00)
         purpose of which is to enable direct participation in
         economic activity, do dividend receipts fall within the                                 (2000/C 79/35)
         scope of value added tax and, if so, are such receipts
         exempt under Article 13B(1)(d) of the Sixth Council           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         Directive (1) or taxable?                                     European Communities by a request of the Court of Session,
                                                                       Scotland, of 11 January 2000, which was received at the Court
3. If the receipt of dividends remains outside the scope of            Registry on 24 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
     value added tax, what are the implications for deduction:         case of Booker Aquaculture Limited, trading as Marine Harvest
                                                                       McConnell, against the Scottish Ministers, on the following
     — does no right remain to deduct tax on fees incurred in          questions:
         connection with the acquisition of shares, on the
         ground that those fees do not relate to a taxable             1. Where, in implement of an obligation under Directive
         transaction, or                                                    93/53/EEC (1) to provide control measures for an outbreak
 ---pagebreak--- 18.3.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 79/19
     of a List II disease on an approved farm or in an approved         Action brought on 27 January 2000 by the Commission
     zone, a Member State adopts a domestic measure the                         of the European Communities against Ireland
     application of which results in the destruction and slaugh-
     ter of fish, are the principles of Community law relating to                                (Case C-22/00)
     the protection of fundamental rights in particular the right
     of property, to be interpreted as having placed on a
     Member State the obligation to adopt measures providing                                     (2000/C 79/37)
     for the payment of compensation
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
     (a) to an owner of fish which are destroyed; and                   Justice of the European Communities on 27 January 2000 by
     (b) to an owner of fish which are required to be slaughtered       the Commission of the European Communities, represented
         immediately, thereby necessitating the immediate sale          by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
         of those fish by that owner?                                   agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
                                                                        Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
2. If the Member State is required to adopt such measures,              Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
     what are the criteria of interpretation needed by a national
     court to determine whether the measures that are adopted           The Applicant claims that the Court should:
     are compatible with the fundamental rights, in particular
     the right of property, which the Court ensures and which           — declare that, in failing to adopt all the measures to
     derive in particular from the European Convention on                    fully and correctly transpose Article 7, second indent, of
     Human Rights?                                                           Directive 87/217/EEC (1), Ireland has failed to comply with
                                                                             Directive 87/217/EEC;
3. In particular, do the criteria require that the measures
     differentiate between the situation where the outbreak of
                                                                        — order Ireland to pay the costs.
     the disease was due to the fault of the owner of the fish
     concerned and the situation where the owner was not at
     fault?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993 introducing mini-
    mum Community measures for the control of certain fish diseases,    Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
    OJ L 175, 19.07.1993, p. 23.                                        a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                        upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                                                                        on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                                                                        laid down in the directive. That period expired on 31 December
                                                                        1988 without Ireland having adopted all the measures necess-
                                                                        ary to fully and correctly transpose Article 7, second indent, of
                                                                        the directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
Giudice di Pace di Massa, by order of 8 October 1999 in
the action pending before that court between Hamadeh                    (1) Council Directive 87/217/EEC on the prevention and reduction
                Adnan and Società Fiat Sava SpA                             of environmental pollution by asbestos (OJ L 85 of 28.3.1987, p.
                                                                            40).
                           (Case C-21/00)
                           (2000/C 79/36)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice del
Pace di Massa (Office of the Justice of the Peace, Massa) of
8 October 1999, received at the Court Registry on 24 January            Action brought on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending               the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium
before it between Hamadeh Adnan and Fiat Sava SpA
                                                                                                 (Case C-33/00)
On the question of the validity and effect within Italian
territory of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April (1) in view                                  (2000/C 79/38)
of the Italian State’s failure to implement the directive in good
time or by 9 March 1995 when a deed of guarantee was
concluded by the defendant in the present action.                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                        on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of the European
(1) Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ 1993 L 95,      Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service,
    p. 29.                                                              acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.