CELEX: C2001/303/12
Language: en
Date: 2001-10-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-308/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court of 24 July 2001, in the case of 1) Gil Insurance Ltd, 2) UK Consumer Electronics Ltd, 3) Consumer Electronics Insurance Company Ltd, 4) Direct Vision Rentals Ltd, 5) Homecare Insurance Ltd, 6) Pinnacle Insurance plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

C 303/8               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.10.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                3.   Is Article 87(1) EC to be interpreted so that an aid is to
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that                      be held to affect trade between Member States only if it
court of 24 July 2001, in the case of 1) Gil Insurance Ltd,                  has, or is capable of having, an appreciable effect on trade
2) UK Consumer Electronics Ltd, 3) Consumer Electronics                      between Member States? If so, what are the criteria for
Insurance Company Ltd, 4) Direct Vision Rentals Ltd,                         determining whether or not a measure has such an effect?
5) Homecare Insurance Ltd, 6) Pinnacle Insurance plc
      against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                                                                        4.   Is Article 87(1) EC to be interpreted so that an aid is to
                                                                             be held to affect trade between Member States if as a
                                                                             result of that aid (1) traders in one Member State reduce
                                                                             the volumes of the goods they import from other Member
                        (Case C-308/01)                                      States; or (2) a trader who rents domestic appliances to
                                                                             customers in one Member State has a number of its rental
                                                                             contracts discontinued and disposes of those appliances
                                                                             in another Member State; or (3) insurance companies in
                                                                             one Member State, which provide insurance connected
                        (2001/C 303/12)                                      with the sales of domestic appliances, are placed at a
                                                                             competitive disadvantage with companies which sell
                                                                             direct insurance some of which are subsidiaries of
                                                                             companies in other Member States?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties               5.   If, in the light of the answers to Questions 3 and 4, the
Tribunals of 24 July 2001, which was received at the Court                   higher rate of insurance premium tax constitutes a state
Registry on 6 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the                   aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, is Article 88
case of 1) Gil Insurance Ltd, 2) UK Consumer Electronics Ltd,                EC to be interpreted so that, where the Commission is
3) Consumer Electronics Insurance Company Ltd, 4) Direct                     not informed of any plans to grant such aid, the legislative
Vision Rentals Ltd, 5) Homecare Insurance Ltd, 6) Pinnacle                   measures introducing the aid should be dis-applied and
Insurance plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise,                   any tax paid under those measures should be repaid?
on the following questions:
                                                                        (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
1.   Is Article 27 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May
     1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
     States relating to turnover taxes — common system of
     value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
     (77/388/EEC) (1) to be interpreted so that the prior
     authorisation of the Council was required before the
     introduction of a higher rate of tax on insurance pre-
     miums, which tax was designed to nullify the exemption
     for insurance services in Article 13 of the Directive; which
     was at a rate identical to the standard rate of value added        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
     tax; which was administered in the same way as value               Verwaltungssenat Wien by order of that court of 25 July
     added tax; which was intended with value added tax to              2001 in the case of Dr Eva Glawischnig against Bundes-
     form part of an inseparable whole; and where there was                                           kanzler
     no tax evasion or tax avoidance?
                                                                                                 (Case C-316/01)
2.   Is Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May
     1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                                        (2001/C 303/13)
     States relating to turnover taxes — common system of
     value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
     (77/388/EEC) to be interpreted so as to prevent a Member           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     State from introducing a tax on insurance premiums                 European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
     which is calculated by reference to the services supplied;         tungssenat Wien (Independent Administrative Chamber, Vien-
     which is proportional to the price of the services supplied;       na) of 25 July 2001, received at the Court Registry on
     which is charged at the final stage of sale to the consumer;       13 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Eva
     which is passed on to the final consumer in a manner               Glawischnig v Bundeskanzler on the following questions:
     characteristic of value added tax so that the burden of tax
     rests on the final consumer; which applies to the whole
     territory of the United kingdom; but which does not                1.   Can the name of the manufacturer of foodstuffs and their
     apply generally to all transactions relating to goods and               product description, in respect of which a complaint has
     services?                                                               been made in the context of the monitoring by the