CELEX: C2002/044/14
Language: en
Date: 2002-02-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-487/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by decision of 14 December 2001 in the case of Gemeente Leusden and Staatssecretaris van Financiën

16.2.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 44/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello                     Article 47(2) of that regulation) to be granted further
di Genova by order of that court of 15 November 2001                           time and may it fix that duration on the basis of the time
in the case of Ministero delle Finanze and Eurico Italia                       actually taken to obtain and forward the prescribed
                               SpA                                             documentation?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 351, 14.12.1987, p. 1.
                         (Case C-467/01)
                          (2002/C 44/12)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
                                                                         e Penale di Trento (Civil and Criminal Court, Trento) by
                                                                         order of 6 December 2001 in the case of Francesca Caprini
                                                                                           v Conservatore C.C.I.A.A.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Corte di Appello di                                     (Case C-485/01)
Genova (Genoa Court of Appeal) by order of 15 November
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 6 December                                     (2002/C 44/13)
2001, on the following questions:
1.   On the basis of the combined provisions of Articles 47(4)           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     and 48 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1), must it be               European Communities by order of 6 December 2001 by the
     concluded that (a) the further time which may be granted            Tribunale Civile e Penale di Trento, which was received at the
     to an exporter may not in any circumstances exceed the              Court Registry on 14 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling
     maximum duration of 18 months; or (b) that, conversely,             in the case of Francesca Caprini v Conservatore C.C.I.A.A. on
     the reduction of 15 % applies only where the ordinary               the following questions:
     time-limit and any extension thereof granted to the
     exporter is exceeded by more than six months?                       Does Council Directive 86/653/EEC (1) of 18 December 1986
                                                                         on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                         to self-employed commercial agents preclude a rule of national
2.   If the interpretation given in question 1(b) above is               law which makes the enrolment of a commercial agent in the
     correct, are there, on the basis of the two abovementioned          register of undertakings conditional on that agent’s name
     articles, maximum time-limits — in the light of the                 having been entered in an appropriate register?
     various forms, including those indicated in the grounds
     of this order, which they may take from the Community
     law point of view — within which the extensions of time             (1) OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17.
     may be granted?
3.   If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct,
     what are those maximum time-limits and what extensions
     of time are available under the two abovementioned
     articles?                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                         Nederlanden by decision of 14 December 2001 in the case
                                                                         of Gemeente Leusden and Staatssecretaris van Financiën
4.   If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct,
     may a private individual, on the basis of the two                                          (Case C-487/01)
     abovementioned articles, claim a legally protected right
     to the setting of a particular duration (regarded as                                        (2002/C 44/14)
     commensurate with the difficulties of obtaining the
     prescribed documentation) for the extension of time?
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
5.   If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct, may        European Communities by decision of 14 December 2001 by
     the national court, on the basis of the two abovemen-               the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the
     tioned articles — if the administrative authority fails to          Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on
     grant further time — recognise the exporter’s right (if he          17 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     has acted diligently to obtain the documents and forward            Gemeente Leusden and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the
     them within the period of 12 months laid down in                    following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.2.2002
1.    Do Articles 20(2) and 17 of the Sixth Directive (1) or the           The appellant claims that the Court should:
      principles, in European law, of the protection of legitimate
      expectations and legal certainty preclude adjustment —
      in a case involving no fraud or abuse or change of                   (1) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      planned use as referred to in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the                  the European Communities of 23 October 2001;
      judgment of the Court of Justice in the Schloßstrasse
      case (2) — of the VAT deducted by a taxable person,
      which he has paid on an item of (immovable) property                 (2) order the respondent to pay to the appellant
      supplied to him with a view to the letting (subject to                     DEM 8 725 320,45 together with interest at 8 % per
      VAT) of that property, for the years of the period of                      annum from the date on which the action was brought;
      adjustment under Article 20(2) which have not yet
      elapsed at the time of the cessation of that right of option
      (in this case, in fact, 1 January 1996) for the sole reason          (3) declare that the respondent is liable to compensate the
      that, as a result of a legislative amendment, the taxable                  appellant for all further damage suffered by it as a result
      person is no longer entitled to waive exemption for that                   of its having had to dismiss its employees and close down
      letting?                                                                   its business with effect from 31 December 1999 on
                                                                                 account of the ban on the importation of Kazakh caviar;
2.    If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is
      the legislative amendment inapplicable only in respect of
      the deducted tax mentioned in Question 1, or is it also              (4) order the Commission to pay the costs.
      inapplicable — until the period of adjustment has expired
      — in respect of the taxed status (subject to the provisions
      of Article 13(C) of the Sixth Directive) of the letting
      referred to in Question 1?
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                           —     The Court of First Instance wrongly assumed that, for the
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
    basis of assessment (OJ 1977, L 145, p. 1).                                  purposes of adopting Decision 1999/244/EC (1), which
(2) Judgment of 8.6.2000 in Case C-396/98.                                       deleted Kazakhstan from the list of third countries, the
                                                                                 Commission enjoyed a wide discretion, with the result
                                                                                 that only a sufficiently serious breach of the principle of
                                                                                 sound administration protecting the appellant could
                                                                                 render the Commission liable to pay compensation.
                                                                                 The decision in question is based on the authorisation
                                                                                 conferred by Article 2(3) of Council Decision 95/408/EC,
                                                                                 which lays down, according to the relevant conditions
                                                                                 and content, and in conjunction with Article 2(2), specific,
                                                                                 restricted criteria to be observed by the Commission.
Appeal brought on 19 December 2001 by Dieckmann &                                The Commission is required to ascertain whether the
Hansen GmbH against the judgment delivered on 23                                 authorities of the third country concerned have given
October 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First                          guarantees at least equivalent to those provided for by
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-155/99                            Council Directive 91/493/EEC or, as the case may be,
between Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH and the Com-                                     whether those guarantees continue to exist.
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                                 Findings made in respect of such guarantees must reflect
                         (Case C-492/01 P)                                       concrete circumstances which are specified in Council
                                                                                 Directive 91/943 and concern conditions for the pro-
                                                                                 duction and placing on the market of the products to be
                           (2002/C 44/15)                                        imported from the third country in question, especially
                                                                                 as regards the maintenance of hygiene standards for the
                                                                                 protection of consumers. Those conditions are to be
                                                                                 specifically determined. Agricultural or economic con-
                                                                                 siderations cannot be taken into consideration in such
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2001                      determination.
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-155/99 between Dieckmann
& Hansen GmbH and the Commission of the European                           —     In any event, the Court of First Instance disregarded the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                       fact that the Commission manifestly and significantly
European Communities on 19 December 2001 by Dieckmann                            exceeded any discretion which it may have had: although
& Hansen GmbH, represented by H.-J. Rabe, Rechtsanwalt, of                       the veterinary inspectors instructed by the Commission
Messrs Latham & Watkins Schön Nolte, of Warburgstrasse 50,                       stated in their report that their assessment of the ‘general
D-20354 Hamburg.                                                                 situation in Kazakhstan so far as concerns the veterinary