CELEX: C2002/233/20
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-255/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court dated 27 June 2002, in the case of Halifax plc, Leeds Permanent Development Services Ltd, County Wide Property Investments Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

C 233/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28.9.2002
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                     Action brought on 29 May 2002 by the European Parlia-
                                                                            ment against Chubb Insurance Company of Europe SA,
                                                                            Commercial General Norwich Union and Royal Sun
                           (First Chamber)                                                         Alliance Belgium
                                                                                                    (Case C-199/02)
                           of 14 June 2002
                                                                                                    (2002/C 233/19)
in Case C-248/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landesgericht Feldkirch): Hermann Pfanner Getränke
GmbH and Others, Getränkebetrieb GmbH and Others (1)                        An action against Chubb Insurance Company of Europe SA,
                                                                            Commercial General Norwich Union and Royal Sun Alliance
                                                                            Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the
(Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Reference for a                  European Communities on 29 May 2002 by the European
preliminary ruling — Disclosure of annual accounts and                      Parliament, represented by D. Petersheim and O. Caisou-
annual report — Maintenance of a register of companies —                    Rousseau, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                 Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)                         Luxembourg.
                                                                            The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
                           (2002/C 233/18)
                                                                            1.    order the defendants to reimburse the European Parlia-
                                                                                  ment the costs of repairing the storm damage caused to
                    (Language of the case: German)                                its Alucobond panels on 26 December 1999, amounting
                                                                                  to EUR 1 194 378,43 together with interest on account
                                                                                  of late payment;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          2.    order Chubb to reimburse the European Parliament
                                                                                  expert’s fees amounting to EUR 2 200,64 together with
                                                                                  interest on account of late payment;
                                                                            3.    order the defendants to pay the costs.
In Case C-248/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Regional Court, Feldkirch)
(Austria), for a preliminary ruling in proceedings before that              Pleas in law and main arguments
Landesgericht brought by Hermann Pfanner Getränke GmbH
and Others and Getränkebetrieb GmbH and Others on the
validity and interpretation of the First Council Directive 68/              The action is brought on the basis of an arbitration clause.
151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards                      The applicant takes the view that the defendant insurance
which, for the protection of the interests of members and                   companies are not entitled to rely upon an exclusion clause
others, are required by Member States of companies within the               set out under the heading ‘storms and hailstorms’ in the
meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty,                supplementary general conditions of the contract of insurance.
with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout
the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41)
and of the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July
1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual
accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11)
— the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas,                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,               Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that
made an order on 14 June 2002, in which it ruled:                           court dated 27 June 2002, in the case of Halifax plc, Leeds
                                                                            Permanent Development Services Ltd, County Wide
                                                                            Property Investments Ltd against Commissioners of Cus-
The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no                                    toms and Excise
jurisdiction to answer the questions put by the Landesgericht Feldkirch
in its order of 22 June 2001.                                                                       (Case C-255/02)
                                                                                                    (2002/C 233/20)
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 233/13
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 27 June 2002, which            Industriehygiene-Service GmbH, established in Kirchheimbo-
was received at the Court Registry on 11 July 2002, for a               landen (Germany), represented by Koen Van Maldegem and
preliminary ruling in the case of Halifax plc, Leeds Permanent          Claudio Mereu, lawyers.
Development Services Ltd, County Wide Property Investments
Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the
following questions:
                                                                        The Appellant claims that the Court should:
1.    (a)  In the relevant circumstances, do transactions:
                                                                        —      declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;
           (i)   effected by each participator with the intention
                 solely of obtaining a tax advantage and                —      annul the Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 April
                                                                               2002 in case T-339/00;
           (ii)  which have no independent business purpose
                                                                        —      declare that the Appellant has standing to bring proceed-
                                                                               ings under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC for the
           qualify for VAT purposes as supplies made by or to                  annulment of Regulation 1896/2000/EC ( 2);
           the participators in the course of their economic
           activities?
                                                                        —      remand the case to the Court of First Instance to rule on
                                                                               the merits;
      (b) In the relevant circumstances, what factors should
           be considered in determining the identity of the
                                                                        —      order the European Commission to bear all costs and
           recipients of the supplies made by the arm’s-length
           builders?                                                           expenses of both proceedings.
2.    Does the doctrine of abuse of rights as developed by the
      Court operate to disallow the Appellants their claims for
      recovery of or relief for input tax arising from the              Pleas in law and main arguments
      implementation of the relevant transactions?
                                                                        The Appellant submits that the contested order should be
                                                                        annulled bacause it was decided on the basis of an overly
                                                                        restrictive interpretation of Article 230 EC which, the Appel-
                                                                        lant maintains, no longer applies as a result of the new test for
                                                                        standing introduced by the Court of First Instance in its recent
                                                                        judgment in case T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré et Cia SA v. European
                                                                        Commission. In the Appellant’s view, his action is clearly
                                                                        admissible under this new test inasmuch as the contested
Appeal brought on 12 July 2002 by Bactria Industriehy-                  Regulation restricts his data protection and property rights in
giene-Service GmbH against the order made on 29 April                   a manner that is both definite and immediate and the Appellant
2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First                        has no recourse to another judicial body to protect his rights.
Instance of the European Communities in case T-339/
00 (1) between Bactria Industriehygiene-Service GmbH
      and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        Furthermore, the Appellant submits that, even if the new test
                                                                        is not applied, the legal assessment made by the Court of First
                                                                        Instance in concluding that the Appellant was not individually
                        (Case C-258/02 P)                               concerned by the contested Regulation is contradictory, insuf-
                                                                        ficiently motivated, based on an erroneous interpretation and
                                                                        application of the relevant legal framework and inconsistent
                         (2002/C 233/21)                                with the predominant case-law on individual concern.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 4, 6.1.2001, p. 9.
                                                                        (2 ) of the Commission of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the
An appeal against the order made on 29 April 2002 by the                     programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                         the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products
                                                                             (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 228, 8.9.2000, p. 6).
European Communities in case T-339/00 between Bactria
Industriehygiene-Service GmbH and Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 12 July 2002 by Bactria