CELEX: C1998/397/05
Language: en
Date: 1998-12-19 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 1998 in Joined Cases C-9/97 and C-118/97 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta (Finland): Raija-Liisa Jokela (C-9/97) and Laura Pitkäranta (C-118/97) (Definition of 'national court or tribunal' - Agriculture - Compensatory allowance for permanent natural handicaps - Conditions for granting the allowance)

19.12.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 397/3
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    transactions consisting of services supplied partly by
                                                                       himself and partly by other taxable persons, the VAT
                      (Fifth Chamber)                                  scheme under that article applies solely to the services
                                                                       supplied by third parties. A trader may not be required
                    of 22 October 1998
                                                                       to calculate the part of the package corresponding to
in Joined Cases C-308/96 and C-94/97 (references for a                 the in-house services by the actual cost method where
preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of                   it is possible to identify that part of the package on
England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, and the VAT                 the basis of the market value of services similar to
and Duties Tribunal, London): Commissioners of Customs                 those which form part of the package.
and Excise v. T. P. Madgett and R. M. Baldwin, and T. P.
Madgett and R. M. Baldwin v. Commissioners of Customs
                        and Excise (1)                            (1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996, and
                                                                      OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(VAT Ð Article 26 of the Sixth VAT Directive Ð Scheme
for travel agents and tour operators Ð Hotel undertakings
Ð Accommodation and travel package Ð Basis of
                 calculation of the margin)
                       (98/C 397/04)
                                                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                        of 22 October 1998
In Joined Cases C-308/96 and C-94/97: references to the           in Joined Cases C-9/97 and C-118/97 (references for a
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the High            preliminary ruling from the Maaseutuelinkeinojen
Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench              Valituslautakunta (Finland): Raija-Liisa Jokela (C-9/97)
Division, and the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London, for                         and Laura Pitkäranta (C-118/97) (1)
preliminary rulings in the proceedings pending before
them between Commissioners of Customs and Excise and              (Definition of national court or tribunal' Ð Agriculture
T. P. Madgett and R. M. Baldwin, trading as The Howden            Ð Compensatory allowance for permanent natural
Court Hotel (Case C-308/96), and between T. P. Madgett                handicaps Ð Conditions for granting the allowance)
and R. M. Baldwin, trading as The Howden Court Hotel,
and Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Case C-94/97)                                     (98/C 397/05)
Ð on the interpretation of Article 26 of the Sixth Council
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:                             (Language of the case: Finnish)
uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1)
Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P.
Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and M.
Wathelet, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
judgment on 22 October 1998, in which it has ruled:                         published in the European Court Reports)
1. Article 26 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC           In Joined Cases C-9/97 and C-118/97: References to the
    of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of            Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the
    the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð                Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta (Finland) for a
    Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of            preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by Raija-
    assessment aplies to a hotelier who, in return for a          Liisa Jokela (C-9/97) and Laura Pitkäranta, represented by
    package price, habitually offers his customers, in            her guardian Anne Pitkäranta (C-118/97) Ð application
    addition to accommodation, return transport between           for the interpretation of Articles 17 and 18 of Council
    certain distant pick-up points and the hotel and a            Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on
    coach excursion during their stay, those transport            improving the efficiency of agricultural structures (OJ
    services being bought in from third parties.                  L 218, 6.8.1991, p. 1), and Article 1 of Council Directive
                                                                  75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on mountain and hill
                                                                  farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas (OJ
                                                                  L 128, 19.5.1975, p. 1) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),
2. On a proper construction of Article 26 of the Sixth            composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P.
    Directive 77/388/EEC, where a trader subject to that          Jann (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.
    article effects, in return for a package price,               Gulmann and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-
 ---pagebreak--- C 397/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.12.98
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a              Mafar Srl (C-22/97) Ð on the consequences arising under
judgment on 22 October 1998, in which it:                            national law from the incompatibility of a domestic
                                                                     charge with Community law Ð the Court, composed of:
                                                                     G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P.
1. It is not contrary to Articles 17 and 18 of Council               Puissochet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents
     Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on                  of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
     improving the efficiency of agricultural structures or to       C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H.
     Article 1 of Council Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April           Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and
     1975 on mountain and hill farming and farming in                K. M. Ioannou, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
     certain less-favoured areas to grant a compensatory             Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
     allowance for permanent natural handicaps to a                  the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 October 1998,
     farmer whose home is not on the farm.                           in which it has ruled:
2. It is not contrary either to the principle of equal               The obligation on a national court to disapply national
     treatment or to that of legal certainty for a farmer            legislation introducing a charge contrary to Community
     claiming the compensatory allowance who does not                law must lead that court, in principle, to uphold claims
     live on his farm but more than 12 kilometres by road            for repayment of that charge. Such repayment must be
     from its operational centre to be required to work the          ensured in accordance with the provisions of its national
     farm himself, to derive at least 50 % of his income             law, on condition that those provisions are not less
     from farming or similar activities and, in addition, to         favourable than those governing similar domestic actions
     establish the existence of special grounds.                     and do not render virtually impossible or excessively
                                                                     difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community
                                                                     law. Any reclassification of the legal relationship
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997, and                                           established between the tax authorities of a Member State
    OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                                                                     and certain companies in that State when a domestic
                                                                     charge subsequently found to be contrary to Community
                                                                     law was levied is therefore a matter for national law.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 22 October 1998
in Joined Cases C-10/97 to C-22/97 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma): Ministero delle Finanze v. IN.CO.GE.'90 Srl and                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           Others (1)
                                                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
(Recovery of sums paid but not due Ð Treatment of a
    national charge incompatible with Community law)                                      of 22 October 1998
                         (98/C 397/06)                               in Joined Cases C-36/97 and C-37/97 (references for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches
                                                                     Verwaltungsgericht): Hilmar Kellinghusen v. Amt für
                                                                     Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Kiel and Ernst-Detlef Ketelsen
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           v. Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Husum (1)
                                                                     (Common agricultural policy Ð Administrative fees Ð
                                                                                       Charging to beneficiaries)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                           (98/C 397/07)
In Joined Cases C-10/97 to C-22/97: references to the                               (Language of the case: German)
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
Pretura Circondariale di Roma (District Magistrate's
Court, Rome) (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Ministero
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
delle Finanze and IN.CO.GE.'90 Srl (C-10/97), Idelgard
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
Srl (C-11/97), Iris'90 Srl (C-12/97), Camed Srl (C-13/97),
Pomieza Progetti Appalti Srl (PPA) (C-14/97), Edilcam Srl
(C-15/97), A. Cecchini & C. Srl (C-16/97), EMO Srl
(C-17/97), Emoda Srl (C-18/97), Sappesi Srl (C-19/97),               In Joined Cases C-36/97 and C-37/97: references to
Ing. Luigi Martini Srl (C-20/97), Giacomo Srl (C-21/97),             the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the