CELEX: C1995/248/03
Language: en
Date: 1995-09-23 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 11 August 1995 in Case C-453/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof, Amsterdam): W. Bulthuis-Griffioen v. Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting (Common system of value added tax - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemption - Services of social nature performed by a private person - Exclusion)

No C 248/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23 . 9 . 95
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 11 August 1995                                                        ( Second Chamber)
       in Case C-431/92 : Commission of the European                                            of 11 August 1995
       Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( ] )
                                                                        in Case C-453/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Failure ofa Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure           the Gerechtshof, Amsterdam ): W. Bulthuis-Griffioen v.
by public authorities to apply a directive which has not yet                            Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting ( l )
been transposed — Council Directive 85/337/EEC —
                                                                        (Common system ofvalue added tax — Sixth VA TDirective
Assessment of the effects ofprojects on the environment —
                                                                        — Exemption — Services of social nature performed by a
Großkrotzenburg thermal power station — Consent for the
                  construction of a new block)
                                                                                           private person — Exclusion)
                                                                                                      ( 95/C 248/03 )
                             ( 95/C 248/02 )
                (Language of the case: German)                                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                   published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-431 /92 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : initially Ingolf Pernice, then Rolf
Wagenbaur, assisted by Alexander Böhlke, of the Brussels                In Case C-453/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Bar ) v. Federal Republic of Germany ( Agent: Ernst Röder,              of the EEC Treaty from the Gerechtshof ( Regional Court of
assisted by Dieter Sellner, Rechtsanwalt), supported by                 Appeal ), Amsterdam, for a preliminary ruling in the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,                   proceedings pending before that court between
( Agent: S. Lucinda Hudson ) — application for a declaration            W. Bulthuis-Griffioen and Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting
that, by granting development consent by decision of                    — on the interpretation of Article 13A of the Sixth Council
31 August 1989 for the construction of a new block at the               Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the
Großkrotzenburg thermal power station without a                          harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
preliminary environmental impact assessment, the Federal                 turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
Republic of Germany has failed to comply with its                        uniform basis of assessment ( 2 ) — the Court ( Second
obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the EEC Treaty read              Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ),
in conjunction with Council Directive 85/377/EEC of                      President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch,
27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain                Judges; G. Kosmas, Advocate General ; H. von Holstein,
public and private projects on the environment (2 ), and in              Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
particular Articles 2 , 3 and 8 of that Directive — the Court,           11 August 1995 , in which it rules :
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F.
A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Presidents of
 Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur,
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
 and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate                    Article 13 A (1 ) of Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of
 General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                  17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
 11 August 1995 , in which it:                                           Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
                                                                         system of value added tax: uniform basis ofassessment is to
                                                                         be interpreted as meaning that a trader who is a natural
                                                                         person cannot claim exemption under paragraph (g) of that
 1 . dismisses the application;                                          provision, which expressly reserves the exemption to bodies
                                                                         governed by public law or other oganizations recognized as
                                                                         charitable by the Member State concerned.
 2 . orders the parties, including the intervener, to bear their
       own costs .
                                                                          (') OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
  (•) OJ No C 29 , 2 . 2 . 1993 .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7 . 1985 , p . 40 .