CELEX: C2002/109/34
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-7/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 21 December 2001 in the case of Holin Groep B.V. c.s. against Staatssecretaris van Financiën

4.5.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/21
8.   Where the numbers of budgetary and established posts                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
     remain unchanged, can additional personnel costs                     Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 21 December
     incurred in the recruitment of additional persons by an              2001 in the case of Holin Groep B.V. c.s. against Staatsse-
     expansion of part-time employment, in contrast to the                                      cretaris van Financiën
     hitherto predominant full-time employment, justify the
     necessity of imposing these costs on part-time employees
     by way of a disproportionate reduction in their rate of
     pension, as occurred under the second and third clauses                                         (Case C-7/02)
     of the first sentence of Paragraph 14(1) of the BeamtenVG
     in the version thereof applicable until 31 December
     1991?
                                                                                                   (2002/C 109/34)
9.   Is it reasonable for such costs to be taken into account as
     a matter of necessity (Q. 8) if the burden of additional
     staff-administration costs is imposed solely on earlier
     part-time employees, hence predominantly women, even                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     though the expansion of part-time employment oppor-                  European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
     tunities at the time of the legislative amendment in that            der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
     regard as a matter of priority pursued the objective of              21 December 2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 Janu-
     reducing general unemployment by the partial absorption              ary 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Holin Groep
     of surplus male and female applicants to the public                  B.V. c.s. against Staatssecretaris van Financiën (State Secretary
     service?                                                             for Finance) on the following question:
                                                                          1.    Do Articles 5(7)(a) and 17 of the Sixth Directive (1). or the
10. Does the Protocol concerning Article 119 of the EC                          European law principles of the protection of legitimate
     Treaty as part of the Treaty on European Union of 1992                     expectations and of legal certainty preclude — in a case
     (OJ 1992 C 191, p. 68) absolutely preclude the detailed                    not involving fraud or abuse or any question of a change
     rules for the inclusion of periods of employment prior to                  in planned use, as mentioned in paragraphs 50 and 51 of
     17 May 1990 from being examined under Article 141(1)                       the judgment of the Court of Justice in Schloßstraße (2)
     and (2) EC (ex Article 119 of the EC Treaty)? Does the                     — the charging of tax on the basis of the abovementioned
     prohibition on such examination also apply where after                     Article 5(7)(a) when a taxable person has deducted VAT
     17 May 1990 the provisions relevant to the inclusion of                    which he has paid for goods delivered, or services
     periods of employment completed before the relevant                        provided, to him with a view to the planned leasing,
     date of 17 May 1990 have been amended but those                            subject to VAT, of a particular immovable property, on
     amendments effect only a partial adjustment in line with                   the simple ground that, as a result of a legislative
     the requirements of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and for                   amendment, the taxable person no longer has the right
     certain categories effect no such favourable adjustment?                   to waive the exemption for that lease?
                                                                          2.    Would an affirmative response to the first question also
11. In determining adherence to the relevant date of 17 May                     apply to a right to deduct arising in the period between
     1990 in the enactment of laws is the date of publication                   notification of the legislative amendment mentioned in
     in the official gazette decisive, or is the matter determined              Question 1 and its entry into force? In other words, in
     by the conclusion of deliberations in the legislative bodies               the event of an affirmative response to Question 1, can
     and indeed even if the law requires the assent of the                      tax still be charged, on the basis of Article 5(7)(a), on the
     Federal Government?                                                        elements of the cost price referred to in Article 11 A(1)(b)
                                                                                of the Sixth Directive which were incurred after that
                                                                                notification date?
(1) OJ 1986 L 225, p. 40.
(2) OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.                                                   (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                              harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
(3) OJ 1997 L 14, p. 6.
                                                                              turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                              basis of assessment (OJ 1977, L 145, p. 1).
                                                                          (2) Judgement of 8.6.2000 in case C-396/98.