CELEX: C2000/259/13
Language: en
Date: 2000-09-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-271/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep, sitting in Antwerp, by judgment of that court of 27 June 2000 in the case of Gemeente Steenbergen (NL) against L. Baten

C 259/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.9.2000
May a Member State treat the use for private residential                 Action brought on 6 July 2000 by the Commission of the
purposes of a dwelling in business premises forming as a                    European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
whole part of the assets of the business — which is equated to
a supply of services for consideration under Article 6(2)(a) of
Directive 77/388/EEC (1) — as tax-exempt (in accordance with                                      (Case C-272/00)
Article 13B(b) of that directive, but without the possibility of
waiving the exemption), with the result that deduction under
Article 17(2)(a) of the directive of the value added tax which                                    (2000/C 259/14)
arose in connection with the construction of the premises is
precluded to that extent?
                                                                         An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
( 1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 July
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal Service, and Frank
                                                                         Benyon, Legal Adviser in the same Service, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                         Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep, sitting in Antwerp, by judgment of that court of
27 June 2000 in the case of Gemeente Steenbergen (NL)                    1.    declare that, since Article 40 of Law No 2065/92 provides
                         against L. Baten                                      that flights from Greece of a distance in excess of 750 km
                                                                               are subject to a higher tax than flights of a distance below
                         (Case C-271/00)                                       750 km, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under Article 49 EC (ex Article 59 of the
                                                                               Treaty) and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                         (2000/C 259/13)                                       No 2408/92 (1);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep                   2.    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(Court of Appeal), sitting in Antwerp, of 27 June 2000,
received at the Court Registry on 5 July 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Gemeente Steenbergen (NL) against
L. Baten on the following questions:                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    Is an action concerning a claim for recovery under the
      Netherlands Algemene Bijstandswet (General Law on
      Social Assistance) brought by a municipality entitled to           The Greek legislation is inconsistent with the freedom to
      seek recovery against a person liable to pay maintenance,          provide services laid down in the EC Treaty, with Council
      as referred to in Article 93 of the Algemene Bijstandswet,         Regulation No 2408/92 on access for Community air carriers
      a civil matter within the meaning of Article 1, first              to intra-Community air routes and with the exercise of the
      paragraph, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on               right to move freely within the territory of the Member States
      Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil             which is granted to the citizens of the European Union under
      and Commercial Matters, and can a judicial decision                Article 8a of the Treaty (now Article 18 EC). It is stated in the
      delivered in such an action come for that reason within            letter of formal notice that the freedom to provide services
      the scope of that Convention?                                      enacted in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2408/92 must be
                                                                         interpreted in direct conjunction with the general principles
2.    Is an action concerning a claim for recovery under                 concerning the freedom to provide services and, finally, it is
      the Netherlands Algemene Bijstandswet brought by a                 stated that the regulation is infringed where air routes between
      municipality entitled to seek recovery against a person            Member States are accorded less favourable treatment, particu-
      liable to pay maintenance, as referred to in Article 93 of         larly as regards their taxation, than comparable air routes in
      the Algemene Bijstandswet, a case relating to social               the same Member State.
      security within the meaning of Article 1, second para-
      graph, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968
      on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
      and Commercial Matters, and does a judicial decision               (1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.
      delivered in such an action fall for that reason outside the
      scope of that Convention?