CELEX: C2003/007/15
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-376/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 18 October 2002 in the case of Stichting "Goed Wonen" against Staatssecretaris van Financiën

11.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 7/9
If the answer to the first question is in the negative:                  right in rem), being revoked on the sole ground that, as a result
                                                                         of a legislative amendment which had not yet taken effect at
                                                                         the time at which the abovementioned transaction was carried
2.    Is Article 45(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
                                                                         out, that transaction is regarded with retroactive effect as an
      Council of 14 June 1971 (1) on the application of social
                                                                         exempt transaction establishing no right to deduct?
      security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
      persons and to members of their families moving within
      the Community, as amended and updated by Council
      Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (2), to
      be interpreted as precluding a rule of a Member State
      which requires inter alia, as a condition of entitlement to
      an early old-age pension in the event of unemployment,
      that the worker concerned must have drawn a cash
      benefit on account of his unemployment from the
      unemployment insurance scheme of that Member State                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State
      within a certain period prior to the qualifying date?              — IXe Kamer (Belgium) by judgment of that Court of
                                                                         18 October 2002 in the case of NV Firma Leon van Parys
                                                                          against Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (BIRB)
( 1) OJ L 149 [1971], p. 2.
( 2) OJ L 28 [1997], p. 1.
                                                                                                   (Case C-377/02)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 7/16)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  European Communities by judgment of the Raad van State
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 18 October                      (Council of State) of 18 October 2002, received at the Court
2002 in the case of Stichting ‘Goed Wonen’ against                       Registry on 21 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
                 Staatssecretaris van Financiën                          case of NV Firma Leon van Parys against Belgisch Interventie-
                                                                         en Restitutiebureau (BIRB) (Belgian Intervention and Refund
                                                                         Bureau) on the following questions:
                           (Case C-376/02)
                                                                         1.    Do Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 (1) of 13 Febru-
                                                                               ary 1993 on the common organisation of the market in
                            (2003/C 7/15)                                      bananas, as amended by Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                               No 1637/98 ( 2) of 20 July 1998, Commission Regulation
                                                                               (EC) No 2362/98 (3) of 28 October 1998 laying down
                                                                               detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regu-
                                                                               lation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         the Community, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2806/
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                          98 ( 4) of 23 December 1998 on the issuing of import
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 18 Octo-                     licences for bananas under the tariff quotas and for
ber 2002, received at the Court Registry on 21 October 2002,                   traditional ACP bananas for the first quarter of 1999 and
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stichting ‘Goed                        on the submission of new applications, Commission
Wonen’ against Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following                 Regulation (EC) No 102/99 ( 5) of 15 January 1999 on the
question:                                                                      issuing of import licences for bananas under the tariff
                                                                               quotas and for traditional ACP bananas for the first
                                                                               quarter of 1999 (second period) and Regulation (EC)
                                                                               No 608/1999 (6) of 19 March 1999 on the issuing of
Under circumstances such as those set out at paragraph 6.3.4.
                                                                               import licences for bananas under the tariff quotas and
above, do Articles 17 and 20 of the Sixth Directive or
                                                                               for traditional ACP bananas for the second quarter of
the European law principles of the protection of legitimate
                                                                               1999 and on the submission of new applications infringe
expectations and of legal certainty preclude — in a case not
                                                                               Article I, Article XIII:1 and Article XIII:2(d) of GATT
involving fraud or abuse or any question of a change in
                                                                               1994, taken separately or together, inasmuch as they:
planned use, as mentioned in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Schloßstraße — the
adjustment of VAT not deducted by a taxable person which he                    —     introduce to the benefit of twelve countries named
paid in respect of (immovable) property which is supplied to                         in the annex to Regulation No 1637/98 a joint
him and which he originally intended for letting (which is not                       quota of a maximum of 857 700 kg [sic] of bananas
subject to VAT), but subsequently used for a transaction                             (‘traditional ACP bananas’) and, moreover, in that
subject to VAT (in the present case, the grant of a usufructuary                     that quota does not accord with a distribution of