CELEX: C1995/229/17
Language: en
Date: 1995-09-02 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 6 July 1995 in Case C-62/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinas): BP Supergas Anonimos Etairia Geniki Emporiki-Viomichaniki kai Antiprossopeion v. Greek State (Interpretation of Articles 11, 17 and 27 of the Sixth VAT Directive - Greek system for the taxation of petroleum products - Taxable amount - Right to deduct - Exemption)

2 . 9 . 95            1 HN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 229/9
2 . declares that the effects ofthe annulled Directive shall be                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       preserved until the Council has adopted new legislation                                  ( Sixth Chamber)
       in the matter;
                                                                                                  of 6 July 1995
                                                                        in Case C-62/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
3 . orders the Council to pay the costs;                                Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinas ): BP Supergas Anonimos
                                                                        Etairia Geniki Emporiki-Viomichaniki kai Antiprossopeion
4 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the United                                      v. Greek State (*)
       Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear            (Interpretation ofArticles 11, 17 and 27 of the Sixth VAT
       their own costs.                                                 Directive — Greek system for the taxation of petroleum
                                                                        products — Taxable amount — Right to deduct —
H OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .                                                                       Exemption)
(2 ) OJ No L 279 , 12 . 11 . 1993 , p . 32 .                                                       ( 95 /C 229/ 17 )
                                                                                        (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                 published in the European Court Reports)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Fourth Chamber)                              In Case C-62/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                            of 5 July 1995                              the EC Treaty by the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinas for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
in Case C-46/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        court between BP Supergas Anonimos Etairia Geniki
the Tribunal de Police, Bordeaux ( France ): Criminal
                                                                        Emporiki-Viomichaniki kai Antiprosopeion and the Greek
             proceedings against Michele Voisine ( J )                  State on the interpretation of Article 11 , 17 and 27 of the
(Description of wines — Definition of 'labelling' — Affixing            Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
       of decoration unconnected with the wine marketed)                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                            ( 95/C 229/16 )                             turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
                                                                        uniform basis of assessment ( 2 ) — the Court ( Sixth
                                                                        Chamber) composed of: F. A. Schockweiler, President of the
                  (Language of the case: French)                        Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and
                                                                        G. Hirsch, Judges; Advocate-General : F. G. Jacobs;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            Registrar: H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a
            published in the European Court Reports)                    judgment on 6 July 1995 , in which it rules :
In Case C-46/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of            1 . Articles 2, 11 and 17 of the Sixth Council Directive
the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Police, Bordeaux                          77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977, on the harmonization of
( France ), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                         the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
proceedings pending before that court against Michele                        — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
Voisine on the interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC )                  assessment, must be interpreted as precluding national
No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 laying down general rules for                     rules which make the importation offinished petroleum
the description and presentation of wines and grape                          products subject to VAT calculated on the basis of a
musts (2 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of:                      basic price different from that provided for in Article 1 1
P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris                   of that Directive and which, by exempting traders in the
and J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), Judges; M. B. Elmer,                         petroleum sector from the obligation to submit returns,
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                         deprive them ofthe right to deduct VAT charged directly
Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 July 1995 , the operative                    on transactions relating to inputs;
part of which is as follows:
                                                                         2 . the provisions of the Sixth Directive, in particular
 The definition of 'labelling' in Article 38 (1 ) of Council                 Articles 13 to 17 thereof, are to be interpreted as
 Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of24 July 1 989 laying down                     precluding an exemption from VAT on services in
general rules for the description and presentation of wines                  respect of the transport and storage of petroleum
 and grape musts covers decoration or advertising which is                   products that are unconnected with the transport of
 unconnected with the wine concerned.                                        those products from a first destination to another
                                                                             named destination;
 (') OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 232, 9 . 8 . 1989 , p . 13 .                              3 . the provisions of Article 11A (1 ) and B (1 ) and (2) and
                                                                             of Article 17 (1 ) and (2) of the Sixth Directive confer
                                                                             rights on individuals on which they may rely before a
                                                                             national court;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 229/10             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2 . 9 . 95
4. a taxable person may claim, with retroactive effect from             (b) on the ground that the new presentation gives the
      the date on which the national legislation contrary to the               impression to the consumer that the volume and the
      Sixth Directive came into force, a refund of VAT paid                    weight of the product have been considerably
      without being due, by following the procedural rules                     increased.
      laid down by the domestic legal system of the Member
      State concerned, provided that those rules are not less
      favourable than those relating to similar, domestic               ( ] ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
      actions nor framed in a way such as to render virtually
      impossible the exercise of rights conferred by
      Community law.
(') OJ No C 124, 6 . 5 . 1993 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                                            ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                                   ( First Chamber )
                                                                                                   of 28 June 1995
                                                                        in Case C-258/94 P: Paulo Branco v. Court of Auditors of
                                                                                          the European Communities ( 1 )
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    (Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                             95/C 229/ 19
                            of 6 July 1995
in Case C-470/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landgericht Köln ): Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel                                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
           und Gewerbe Köln eV v. Mars GmbH ( 1 )
 (Free movement of goods — Measures having an effect
equivalent to quantitative restrictions — Presentation of a              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
product likely to restrict freedom to fix retail prices and                        published in the European Court Reports)
                     mislead the consumer)
                             ( 95/C 229/18 )
                                                                         In Case C-25 8/94 P : Paulo Branco, an official of the Court of
                                                                         Auditors of the European Communities, and subsequently
                 (Language of the case: German)                          of the Commission of the European Communities, resident
                                                                         in Brussels, represented by Raoul Wagener and David
                                                                         M. Travessa Mendes, both of the Luxembourg Bar, 6-12,
 In Case C-470/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177             Place d'Armes, Luxembourg — appeal against the order of
 of the EC Treaty by the Landgericht Koln ( Germany ) for a              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of
 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that               20 July 1994 in CaseT-45/93 between Paulo Branco and the
 court between Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel und                         Court of Auditors of the European Communities ([ 1994]
 Gewerbe Koln eV v. Mars GmbH — on the interpretation of                 ECR-SC 11-641 ), seeking to have that order set aside, the
 Article 30 of the EC Treaty, the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),               other party to the proceedings being the Court of Auditors
 composed of: C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), President of the                 of the European Communities ( Agents : Jean-Marie Stenier
 Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O.                    and Jan Inghelram ) — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed
 Edward and L. Sevon, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General;                 of: P. Jann , President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O.
 H. A. Riihl , Principal Administrator, has given a judgment              Edward and L. Sevon, Judges; A. M. La Pergola,
 on 6 July 1995 , in which it rules :                                     Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar , made an order on
                                                                          28 June 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
 Article 30 ofthe EC Treaty is to be interpreted as precluding
 a national measure from prohibiting the importation and                  1 . the appeal is dismissed;
 marketing of a product lawfully marketed in another
 Member State, the quantity of which was increased during a
 short publicity campaign and the wrapping of which bears                 2 . the appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
  the marking '+ 10% ':
                                                                          (') OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
  (a) on the ground that that presentation may induce the
        consumer into thinking that the price of the goods
        offered is the same as that at which the goods had
        previously been sold in their old presentation;