CELEX: C2000/163/12
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-61/00 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2000 by Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH against the judgment delivered on 15 December 1999 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96 between Freistaat Sachsen, Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, of the one part, and the Commission of the European Communities of the other part

C 163/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.6.2000
— Defective application of Article 253 EC: The assumption               Appeal brought on 23 February 2000 by Volkswagen AG
    that sufficient reasons are stated for the contested Com-           and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH against the judgment
    mission decision is based on a misrepresentation of the             delivered on 15 December 1999 by the Second Chamber
    content of that decision by the Court of First Instance.            (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                        the European Communities in Joined Cases T-132/96 and
                                                                        T-143/96 between Freistaat Sachsen, Volkswagen AG and
— Infringement of Article 87(3)(b) EC: The applicants submit            Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, of the one part, and the
    that neither the wording nor the sense and purpose of               Commission of the European Communities of the other
    Article 87(3)(b) EC justify the conclusion by the Court of                                         part
    First Instance that the collapse of the former nationalised
    economy of the GDR in the course of reunification did not
    lead to a ‘serious disturbance in the economy’ of Germany.                                  (Case C-61/00 P)
    In view of the fact that German reunification necessitates
    the economic reconstruction of almost a third of German
    territory, the applicants maintain that it is unjustifiable to                              (2000/C 163/12)
    exclude that serious economic disturbance, the overcoming
    of which requires extraordinary financial sacrifices from
    the whole Federal Republic, from the scope of Article
    87(3)(b) EC.                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 December
                                                                        1999 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
— Infringement of Articles 87(3) and 88 EC: The applicants              Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96 (1) between Freistaat Sachsen,
    submit that the contested judgment infringes Articles 87            Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, of the one
    and 88 EC by holding that the aid granted to the VW                 part, and the Commission of the European Communities, of
    group required prior notification and should have been              the other part, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
    comprehensively examined by the Commission in accord-               European Communities on 23 February 2000 by Volkswagen
    ance with Article 87 EC. They maintain that that is legally         AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, represented by Michael
    incorrect, since the aid formed part of an approved aid             Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, Rue de la Loi 99-101, B-1040 Brussels,
    programme. The Court of First Instance misunderstood                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    the legal significance of the reservation in the Commission         Bonn & Schmidt, Rechtsanwalte, 7 Val Ste Croix, L-1371
    decision approving the aid programme that the special               Luxembourg.
    rules for particular sectors of industry had to be complied
    with, and wrongly assumed that approval of the aid
    programme did not extend to the motor vehicle industry.             The appellants claim that the Court should:
    That reservation applied only to rules in force. The
    Community Framework on State Aid to the Motor Vehicle
    Industry had expired on 31 December. In respect of the              — set aside the contested judgment in its entirety;
    Federal Republic of Germany, the Commission proposal
    to extend the framework had not been approved on
    22 March 1991, the date on which the disputed aids were             — uphold the claims at first instance, in so far as they seek:
    granted. It was not until April 1991, after the grant of the
    aid, that the Federal Government agreed to the extension
    of the framework. Therefore, the duty to give individual                1. annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision K (96)
    notification, which had its legal basis only in the (expired)               1844 endg. of 26 June 1996, save for the first indent
    framework, could not apply to aid to the motor vehicle                      thereof, referring to special write-offs with a nominal
    industry from approved aid programmes. The aid fell                         value of DEM 51.67 million; and in respect of the first
    under the rules approved by the Commission for aid                          indent, referring to special write-offs with a nominal
    programmes, and in particular under the Joint Task                          value of DEM 51.67 million, declare the substance of
    between the Federal Government and the Länder of                            the dispute exhausted in that respect;
    improving the regional economic structure (Nineteenth
    Outline Plan) and the German law on investment allow-
    ances (Investitionszulagengesetz). Since the aid fell under             2. annulment of Article 3(2) of Commission Decision K
    approved programmes, it was not subject to comprehen-                       (96) 1844 endg. of 26 June 1996 in so far as the
    sive examination in accordance with Article 87 EC, but                      combined effective aid intensity, expressed in gross
    only to limited examination as existing aid.                                grant equivalent, is limited to 22.3 % for Mosel II and
                                                                                20.8 % for Chemnitz II;
                                                                            3. annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision K (96)
(1) OJ 2000 C 79, p. 22.                                                        1844 endg. of 26 June 1996 in so far as the amount
                                                                                of investment grants declared compatible with the
                                                                                common market is limited to DEM 418.7 million.
                                                                        — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 163/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 28 April 1999
                                                                          in the case of Welthgrove BV against Secretary of State
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                                           for Finances
C-57/00 P.
                                                                                                    (Case C-102/00)
(1) OJ 2000 C 79, p. 22.
                                                                                                   (2000/C 163/14)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 28 April
                                                                          1999, received at the Court Registry on 20 March 2000, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Welthgrove BV against
                                                                          Secretary of State for Finances on the following questions:
Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of                       1. In light of the judgment in Polysar (1), particularly para-
 the European Communities against the French Republic                          graphs 13 and 14 thereof, where a parent company
                                                                               involves itself in the management of a subsidiary, is the
                           (Case C-84/00)                                      receipt of dividends from that subsidiary to be deemed to
                                                                               constitute consideration for such involvement within the
                                                                               meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive (2)?
                          (2000/C 163/13)
                                                                          2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does
                                                                               the mere fact that the appellant involves itself in the
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                               management of its subsidiary companies, in the manner
Court of Justice on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                               described in paragraph 14 of the Polysar judgment, mean
European Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
                                                                               that the appellant is to be deemed a taxable person within
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                               the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive?
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          3. If the answer to the first or second question is affirmative,
                                                                               does such involvement come within the exception of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth Directive, that is to say within
                                                                               the transactions mentioned therein?
— declare that, by failing to allow the marketing within
     France of works made of precious metals which come                   (1) Case C-60/90 [1991] ECR I-3111.
     from other Member States and which indicate a standard               (2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
     of fineness of ‘999 parts per thousand’, despite the fact                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
     that that standard is commonly used in commercial                        turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     practice, the French Republic has failed to comply with its              basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
     obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
     amendment, Article 28 EC);
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 17 March 2000 by the Commission of
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
The Commission considers that the exclusion by the French                                           (Case C-103/00)
legislation (1) of a standard of fineness of 999 parts per
thousand, in relation to both works made from gold and                                             (2000/C 163/15)
works made from silver and platinum, cannot be justified
either on grounds of consumer protection or on grounds of
fair trading.                                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 March
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser in
(1) In the present case, Articles 521 and 522 of the Code Général des
                                                                          its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national
    Impôts (General Tax Code), as amended by Law 94-6.
                                                                          civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                          Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                          Kirchberg.