CELEX: C1999/020/31
Language: en
Date: 1999-01-23 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 20 November 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against Nea Energiaki Tekhnologia EPE (Case C-416/98)

23.1.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                             on the basis that the settlement which the Commission
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 24 September                  agreed to is considered to be invalid as achieved by
1998 in the case of Laszlo Bakcsi against Finanzamt                     fraudulent means, that is to say the Court should
                       Fürstenfeldbruck                                 order the defendant to refund the entire amount of the
                                                                        principal debt of GRD 13 800 000, together with
                       (Case C-415/98)
                                                                        interest under the provisions of the agreement
                        (1999/C 20/30)                                  amounting to GRD 24 382 218 up until service of
                                                                        this application, namely a total amount of
                                                                        GRD 38 182 218, and additionally legal interest for
                                                                        late payment under Greek legislation from service of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  this application on the defendant until the full
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                    discharge of its debt, or otherwise interest on the basis
(Federal Finance Court) of 24 September 1998, received at               of the rate set by the European Investment Bank in
the Court Registry on 20 November 1998, for a                           respect of the period from the lodging of this
preliminary ruling in the case of Laszlo Bakcsi against                 application until the defendant has fully discharged the
Finanzamt Fürstenfeldbruck on the following questions:                  debt;
(1) May a trader allocate goods used for mixed purposes
     (business and non-business) wholly to his private              Ð in the alternative, order the defendant to refund to
     assets, regardless of the extent to which they are used            the Commission the amount arising under the
     in his business?                                                   abovementioned settlement, namely GRD 9 498 551,
                                                                        together with interest owed on the principal sum of
                                                                        GRD 9 257 051, which under the provisions of the
(2) Where a person has acquired goods from a private                    agreement amounts to interest of GRD 14 643 006 up
     individual for the purposes of his business with no                until service of this application, that is to say a total
     right to deduct tax and subsequently disposes of                   amount of GRD 24 141 557, and also the legal
     them, is that disposal fully liable to turnover tax in             interest provided for by Greek legislation from service
     accordance with Articles 2(1) and 11A(1)(a) of                     of this application until the full discharge of the
     Directive 77/388/EEC (1)?                                          defendant's debt, or otherwise interest on the basis of
                                                                        the rate set by the European Investment Bank in
                                                                        respect of the period from the lodging of this
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                          application until the defendant has fully discharged the
                                                                        debt;
                                                                    Ð order the defendant in each case to pay the
                                                                        Commission's general legal costs together with the fees
Action brought on 20 November 1998 by the Commission                    of its authorised lawyers.
of the European Communities against Nea Energiaki
                       Tekhnologia EPE
                       (Case C-416/98)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                        (1999/C 20/31)
                                                                    The objects of the defendant company are the study and
An action against Nea Energiaki Tekhnologia EPE was                 construction of alternative energy systems and its
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 participation in public tenders. In 1985 the Commission
Communities on 20 November 1998 by the Commission                   entered into an agreement with the defendant under which
of the European Communities, represented by Richard                 the latter undertook, in return for Community financial
Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier                    assistance, to carry out the project Kea Island', whose
Couvert-CasteÂra, a civil servant on secondment to its              objective was the installation of a wind generator on a
Legal Service, assisted by Maria Bra, of the Brussels Bar,          Greek island and a two-year demonstration that the
and Kiriaki Kapoutzidou, of the Athens Bar, with an                 system worked before being handed over to the users.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos           Under that agreement the Commission made an advance
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,              payment to the defendant of GRD 13 800 000. However,
Kirchberg.                                                          the defendant did not take any steps at all to implement
                                                                    the project. The Commission subsequently terminated the
                                                                    agreement. The defendant never repaid the sum received
                                                                    in advance or even the sum arising under the settlement
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                    reached in the meantime.
Ð order the defendant to refund to the Commission all
    the financing which it received from the Community,