CELEX: C1997/131/17
Language: en
Date: 1997-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 26 November 1996 in the case of Reiner Woltmann trading as Firma Trans-Ex-Import against Hauptzollamt Potsdam (Case C-86/97)

26 . 4 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 131 /7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello               — Does a system under which VAT on a benefit in kind
di Torino — Sezione I Civile — by order of that court of                     granted to an employee of an undertaking is calculated
31 January 1997 in the case of Amministrazione delle                         on a VAT inclusive basis when Belgian VAT is paid by
Finanze dello Stato against Grafoplast Italiana SpA in its                   the employer and on a VAT exclusive basis when VAT
own right and as the successor to Grafoplast Italiana SRL                    of another Member State is paid offend against
                           and Trasp. SRL                                    Article 95 of the Treaty of Rome and the principle of
                           (Case C-84/97)                                    'fiscal neutrality' laid down by the sixth VAT
                                                                             Directive ?
                            ( 97/C 131 /15 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
European Communities by order of the Corte d'Appello di
Torino, Sezione I Civile ( First Civil Division of the Court
of Appeal, Turin ) of 31 January 1997, which was received
at the Court Registry on 25 February 1997, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Amministrazione delle Fi­
nanze dello Stato against Grafoplast Italiana SpA in its
own right and as the successor to Grafoplast Italiana SRL               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
and Trasp. SRL on the following question:                               by order of that court of 26 November 1996 in the case of
                                                                        Reiner Woltmann trading as Firma Trans-Ex-Import
'Does there exist a principle of law which precludes a                                   against Hauptzollamt Potsdam
Member State which has failed to fulfil its obligations by                                          Case C-86/97 )
failing to adapt domestic law to Community law from
restricting the right of an individual to initiate proceedings                                       97/C 131 / 17
based directly on Community law and relating to the
period prior to such adaptation, and if so to determine in
the light of that principle the compatibility with                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Community law of Article 13 ( 2 ) of Decree No 641 of                   European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
26 October 1972, which makes subject to a time limit of                 ( Federal Finance Court) of 26 November 1996, received at
three years an action for recovery of the sum unduly paid               the Court Registry on 27 February 1997, for a preliminary
in the period prior to the entry into force of the 1993                 ruling in the case of Reiner Woltmann trading as Firma
adaptation of domestic law to the Community Directive                   Trans-Ex-Import against Hauptzollamt Potsdam ( Principal
by Grafoplast to the Italian State pursuant to provisions               Customs Office Potsdam ) on the following questions :
which infringe Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/
EEC (')?'
                                                                        1 . Is Article 905 ( 1 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
(!) OJ No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969, p. 25 .                                     No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for
                                                                             the implementation of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                             No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
                                                                             Code (') to be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                             decision-making customs authority is not to accept
                                                                             that there is a 'special situation resulting from
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fifth Chamber
                                                                             circumstances in which no deception or obvious
of the Tribunal de Premiere Instance, Liege, by judgment
                                                                             negligence may be attributed to the person concerned'
of that court of 24 February 1997 in the case of Societe
                                                                             if on the theft of goods from a customs warehouse
Financiere d'Investissements SPRL ( SFI) against the
                                                                             ( non-Community            goods )    the conditions   in
                              Belgian State
                                                                             Article 900 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93
                           ( Case C-85/97 )                                  for remission of customs duty to the owner of the
                             ( 97/C 131 / 16                                 warehouse are not met ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Fifth Chamber                   2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative :
of the Tribunal de Premiere Instance ( Court of First
Instance ), Liege, of 24 February 1997, received at the
Court Registry on 27 February 1997, for a preliminary                        does the same apply in a case of hardship where theft
ruling in the case of Societe Financiere d'Investissements                   was not an insurable risk and the levying of customs
SPRL ( SFI ) against the Belgian State on the following                      duty would destroy the warehouse owners business, or
questions :
                                                                             may it be found on such facts that there is a 'special
                                                                              situation' within the meaning of Article 905 ( 1 ) of
— is the position taken by the VAT authorities, that the                      Regulation ( EEC ) No' 2454/93 which should be
     limitation period for the collection of tax runs from                    referred to the Commission for decision ?
     the 20th of the month following the quarter in which
     registration for VAT took place, as regards taxable                 (') OJ L 253 , 11 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
     transactions carried out before that registration,
     compatible with Articles 4 and 10 of the sixth VAT
     Directive ( ] )?