CELEX: C1999/333/31
Language: en
Date: 1999-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-315/99 P: Appeal brought on 24 August 1999 by Ismeri Europa Srl against the judgment delivered on 15 June 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-277/97 between Ismeri Europa Srl and Court of Auditors of the European Communities

20.11.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 333/15
at the Court Registry on 13 August 1999, for a preliminary              2. breach of Community law regarding the principle that
ruling in the criminal proceedings against Armando Caterino                 proceedings should be inter partes and failure to state
on the following question:                                                  sufficient reasons;
‘For the purposes of Community law, is the term “transport              3. failure to adjudicate on a crucial point in the dispute;
[of] waste on a professional basis” contained in Article 12 of          4. breach of Community law regarding defamation and
Directive 91/156/EEC(1) equivalent to “transport of waste                   failure to state sufficient reasons;
produced by others”, regard also being had to the notion
of “producer” of waste under Article 1 of that directive?               5. distortion of the facts relating to the alleged ‘confusion of
Consequently, is Article 1(19) of Law No 426/1998, which                    interests’ and failure to state sufficient reasons or to define
implements that directive, in itself in accordance or at variance           the legal situation correctly;
with the above Community legislation properly construed?’
                                                                        6. distortion of the facts relating to the alleged reluctance of
                                                                            Ismeri’s representative to resign from the management
 (1) Council Directive of 18 March 1991 amending Directi-
     ve 75/442/EEC on waste, OJ L 78 of 26 March 1991, p. 32.               board of the ARTM (agency for transMediterranean net-
                                                                            works) and failure to state sufficient reasons.
Appeal brought on 24 August 1999 by Ismeri Europa Srl                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
against the judgment delivered on 15 June 1999 by the                   finanzhof (Federal Finance Court) by order of that court
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     of 15 July 1999 in the case of Finanzamt Burgdorf v
European Communities in Case T-277/97 between Ismeri                                           Hans-Georg Fischer
Europa Srl and Court of Auditors of the European
                            Communities                                                          (Case C-322/99)
                         (Case C-315/99 P)                                                       (1999/C 333/32)
                          (1999/C 333/31)                               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by a judgment of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                        of 15 July 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 June 1999 by             27 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 Finanzamt Burgdorf v Hans-Georg Fischer on the following
European Communities in Case T-277/97 between Ismeri                    question of interpretation of Directive 77/388/EEC (1):
Europa Srl and the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the              (1) Do subsequent (deductible) bodywork repairs and respray-
European Communities on 24 August 1999 by Ismeri Europa                     ing work carried out on a car (on the purchase of which
Srl, whose registered office is in Rome, represented by Sergio              VAT was not deductible) mean, on transfer from the
Ristuccia and Gian Luigi Tosato, of the Rome Bar.                           business,
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                 (a) that the car must be viewed as goods on which
                                                                                 VAT was partly deductible under Article 5(6) of the
— set aside the judgment delivered on 15 June 1999 by the                        Directive, or
     Court of First Instance in Case T-277/97;
                                                                            (b) that the subsequent expenditure is to be viewed as a
— uphold the forms of order sought by Ismeri at first                            component, on which VAT was deductible, of the
     instance, which are to be deemed to have been reapplied                     goods?
     for in their entirety;
                                                                        (2) If Question (1) is answered in the affirmative, what are the
— order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs incurred both                business goods disposed of which are to be taxed under
     at first instance and in these appeal proceedings.                     Article 5(6) of the Directive:
                                                                            (a) the car including the work carried out on it (bodywork
Pleas and main arguments                                                         repairs and respraying) or
                                                                            (b) only the work carried out (bodywork repairs and
Pursuant to Article 225 of the EC Treaty and Article 49 of the                   respraying)?
EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Ismeri appeals against the
above judgment on the following grounds:                                (3) If Question (2) is answered in the affirmative: Is the basis
                                                                            of assessment under Article 11A(1)(b) of the Directive the
1. flaws in the procedure before the Court of Instance (failure             purchase price of the car (or an equivalent car) together
     to rule on the application for a hearing of oral evidence              with the cost of repairs each determined as at the time of
     and an inadequate preparatory inquiry) to the detriment of             disposal, or only the price of the (tax deductible) repairs
     the applicant;                                                         carried out?