CELEX: C2000/149/10
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 March 2000 in Case C-217/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v LFZ Nordfleisch AG (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Beef and veal — Export refund — Withdrawal of the application for advance payment — Effect on the security)

C 149/6                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          27.5.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 21 March 2000                                                             (First Chamber)
in Joined Cases C-110/98 to C-147/98 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico-Admini-                                              of 21 March 2000
strativo Regional de Cataluña): Gabalfrisa SL and Others
v Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria (AEAT) (1)                  in Case C-217/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v
(Meaning of national court or tribunal for the purposes of                                        LFZ Nordfleisch AG (1)
Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) —
Admissibility — Value added tax — Interpretation of Article
                                                                            (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
17 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Deduction of tax paid
                                                                            Beef and veal — Export refund — Withdrawal of the
on inputs — Activities prior to carrying out economic
                                                                             application for advance payment — Effect on the security)
                  transactions on a regular basis)
                           (2000/C 149/09)                                                             (2000/C 149/10)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                                             (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-110/98 to C-147/98: references to the Court
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from                In Case C-217/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Cataluña                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Bundesfinanzhof
(Spain) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                 (Federal Finance Court), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
before that court between Gabalfrisa SL and Others and                      the proceedings pending before that court between Haupt-
Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria (AEAT) — on                   zollamt Hamburg-Jonas, and LFZ Nordfleisch AG on the
the interpretation of Article 17 of Sixth Council Directive                 interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 33(1) of
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                       Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                      1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                  of the system of export refunds on agricultural products
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court, composed of:                        (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1) as amended by Commission Regulation
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida               (EEC) No 1615/90 of 15 June 1990 (OJ 1990 L 152, p. 33) in
(Rapporteur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Cham-               conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 29 of Regulation
bers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,             (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common
P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio,                  detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 agricultural products (OJ 1985 L 205, p. 5) — the Court (First
on 21 March 2000, in which it has ruled:                                    Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President of
                                                                            the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola,
Article 17 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977             Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to           has given a judgment on 21 March 2000, in which it has ruled:
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis
of assessment precludes national legislation which makes the exercise
                                                                            The second paragraph of Article 33(1) of Commission Regulation
of the right to deduct value added tax paid by a taxable person liable
                                                                            (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common
thereto before he starts regularly carrying out taxable transactions
                                                                            detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on
conditional upon the fulfilment of certain requirements such as the
                                                                            agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC)
submission of an express request to that effect before the tax concerned
                                                                            No 1615/90 of 15 June 1990, in conjunction with the first
becomes due and compliance with a time-limit of one year between
                                                                            paragraph of Article 29 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
that submission and the actual commencement of taxable trans-
                                                                            No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules
actions, and which penalises infringement of those requirements by
                                                                            for the application for the system of securities for agricultural
forfeiture of the right to deduct or deferment of the exercise of that
                                                                            products, is not applicable where an exporter, after submitting to the
right until the time at which taxable transactions actually begin to
                                                                            competent national authorities an application for advance payment
be carried out on a regular basis.
                                                                            of the export refund for goods placed under the customs warehousing
                                                                            scheme, in accordance with Article 29(2) of Regulation
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                   No 3665/87, withdraws his application in order to reintroduce those
                                                                            goods into the customs territory of the Community, but nevertheless
                                                                            receives the advance payment of the export refund originally applied
                                                                            for.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 149/7
In those circumstances, the security provided for in Article 31(1) of          an objection, in accordance with Article 13(2) of that directive,
Regulation No 3665/87 must be released and only the amount paid                or if the Commission has taken a ‘favourable decision’ under
by way of advance payment of the export refund must be reimbursed              paragraph (4) of that provision, the competent authority which
by the exporter in accordance with the national provisions applicable          forwarded the application, with a favourable opinion, to the
to repayment of sums unduly paid.                                              Commission must issue the ‘consent in writing’, allowing the
                                                                               product to be placed on the market. However, if in the meantime
                                                                               the Member State concerned has new information which leads it
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                     to consider that the product for which notification has been
                                                                               received may constitute a risk to human health and the
                                                                               environment, it will not be obliged to give its consent, provided
                                                                               that it immediately informs the Commission and the other
                                                                               Member States about the new information in order that, within
                                                                               the period laid down in Article 16(2) of Directive 90/220, a
                                                                               decision may be taken in the matter in accordance with the
                                                                               procedure provided for in Article 21 of that directive.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           2. Where the national court finds that, owing to irregularities in
                          of 21 March 2000                                     the conduct of the examination of the notification by the
                                                                               competent national authority provided for in Article 12(1) of
                                                                               Directive 90/220, it was not proper for that authority to forward
in Case C-6/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the dossier with a favourable opinion to the Commission as
the Conseil d’État): Association Greenpeace France and
                                                                               provided for in paragraph (2) of that provision, that court must
Others v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche and
                                                                               refer the matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling if
                              Others (1)
                                                                               it considers that those irregularities are such as to affect the
                                                                               validity of the Commission’s favourable decision, if necessary
(Directive 90/220/EEC — Biotechnology — Genetically                            ordering the suspension of application of the measures for
 modified organisms — Decision 97/98/EC — Maize seeds)                         implementing that decision until the Court of Justice has ruled
                                                                               on the question of validity.
                           (2000/C 149/11)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-6/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Conseil d’État,                                           (Sixth Chamber)
France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Association Greenpeace France and                                         of 23 March 2000
Others and Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche and
Others, third parties: Novartis Seeds SA, Monsanto Europe SA               in Case C-373/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
— on the interpretation of Article 13(2) and (4) of Council                the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon): Dionisios Diamantis
Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate                    v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) and Organismos Ikono-
release into the environment of genetically modified organisms                    mikis Anasinkrotisis Epikhiriseon AE (OAE) (1)
(OJ 1990 L 117, p. 15), as amended by Commission Directive
97/35/EC of 18 June 1997 adapting to technical progress for                (Company law — Second Directive 77/91/EEC — Public
the second time Council Directive 90/220 (OJ 1997 L 169,                   limited liability company in financial difficulties — Increase
p. 72) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                 in the capital of the company by administrative decision —
President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen            Abuse of a right arising from a provision of Community
(Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C. Gul-                                              law)
mann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and
F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von                                               (2000/C 149/12)
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 21 March 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                               (Language of the case: Greek)
1. Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the
     deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified
     organisms, as amended by Commission Directive 97/35/EC of             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     18 June 1997 adapting to technical progress for the second time                          in the European Court Reports)
     Council Directive 90/220, is to be interpreted as meaning that,
     if, after an application for placing a GMO on the market has          In Case C-373/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
     been forwarded to the Commission, no Member State has raised          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Polimeles