CELEX: C2004/007/35
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-453/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), by order of that court dated 23 October 2003, in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) ABNA Ltd, 2) Denis Brinicombe (a partnership), 3) BOCM Pauls Ltd, 4) Devenish Nutrition Ltd, 5) Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, 6) Primary Diets Ltd against 1) Secretary of State for Health, 2) Food Standards Agency

C 7/22                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.1.2004
                (i)   do the transactions between B and connec-            trative Court) dated 23 October 2003, which was received at
                      ted companies within the Member State                the Court Registry on 27 October 2003, for a preliminary
                      (‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘D’) qualify for VAT purposes          ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) ABNA
                      as supplies made by or to those companies            Ltd, 2) Denis Brinicombe (a partnership), 3) BOCM Pauls Ltd,
                      in the course of their economic activities;          4) Devenish Nutrition Ltd, 5) Nutrition Services (International)
                      if not,                                              Ltd, 6) Primary Diets Ltd and 1) Secretary of State for Health,
                                                                           2) Food Standards Agency on the following question:
                (ii) what factors should be considered in
                      determining the identity of the supplier of
                      the slot gaming services?                            Are Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/02 (1) and/or Article 1(4)
                                                                           of Directive 2002/02, to the extent that it amends
      4.   a)   Is there a principle of abuse of right which               Article 5c(2)(a) of Directive 79/373 (2) by requiring percentages
                (independently of the interpretation given to              to be listed, invalid by reason of
                the VAT Directives) is capable of precluding the
                advantage sought in a case such as the present?            a.    the absence of a legal basis in Article 152(4)(b) EC;
           b)   If so, how does it operate in the circumstances            b.    infringement of the fundamental right to property;
                such as the present?
                                                                           c.    infringement of the principle of proportionality?
      5.   a)   What significance, if any, should be attached to
                the fact that A, C and D are not subsidiaries of
                B and that B does not control A, C and D either
                legally or economically?                                   (1) Directive 2002/02/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                               Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/
                                                                               EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing
           b)   Would it make a difference to any of the                       Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (OJ L 63, 06.03.2002, p. 23).
                answers given above if the type of management              (2) Directive 79/373/EEC of the Council of 2 April 1979 on the
                undertaken by B at its business establishment                  marketing of compound feedingstuffs (OJ L 86, 06.04.1979,
                outside the territory of the Community were                    p. 30).
                necessary for the provision of slot gaming
                services to customers and neither A, C nor D
                performs those activities?
(1) OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 326, 21.11.1986, p. 40.
                                                                           Action brought on 27 October 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                                    (Case C-456/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court                                                 (2004/C 7/36)
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Administrative Court), by order of that court dated
23 October 2003, in the case of The Queen on the
application of 1) ABNA Ltd, 2) Denis Brinicombe (a part-
nership), 3) BOCM Pauls Ltd, 4) Devenish Nutrition Ltd,                    An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
5) Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, 6) Primary Diets                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 October
Ltd against 1) Secretary of State for Health, 2) Food                      2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                        Standards Agency                                   represented by Karen Banks, acting as Agent.
                         (Case C-453/03)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2004/C 7/35)                                   —     declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
                                                                                 regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                                 comply with Directive 1998/44/EC (1) of the European
                                                                                 Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           protection of biotechnological inventions, the Italian
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                            Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Adminis-                      of that directive;