CELEX: C1996/180/53
Language: en
Date: 1996-06-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 25 April 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-138/96)

No C 180/24              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22 . 6 . 96
 Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Paris, of 23 February                   Communities on 25 April 1996 by the Commission of the
  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 25 April               European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
  1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Scotch                Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
 Whisky Association v. La Martiniquaise LM, now called                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
 Compagnie Financière Européenne de Prises de                              Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
 Participation ( Cofepp ), Prisunic SA, Centrale d'Achats et de
 Services Alimentaires SARL ( Casai ) on the following                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
 question:
                                                                            1 , declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
 Having regard to European rules, in particular Article 5 of                      adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 i 1 ),                      Directive 92/116/EEC ( 1 ), the Federal Republic of
 may the generic term 'whisky' be included in the trade name                      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 of spirit drinks consisting entirely of whisky diluted with                      Treaty and under that Directive;
 water, so that the alcoholic strength by volume is less than
 40° ?
                                                                           2 , order the defendant to pay the costs.
 C ) OJ No L 160, 12 . 6 . 1989 , p . 1 .
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments .
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                           in Case C-135/96 ( 2 ), the time limit for transposition expired
 Action brought on 24 April 1996 by the Commission of the                  on 1 January 1994 .
 European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                  Germany                                  (') OJ No L 62 , 1993 , p . 1 .
                            ( Case C-137/96 )                              ( 2 ) See p . 23 of this Official Journal .
                               ( 96/C 180/52 )
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 Communities on 24 April 1 996 by the Commission of the
 European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in          Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 14 March 1996 in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the               the case of Finanzamt Osnabriick-Land v. Bernhard
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.                                                            Langhorst
                                                                                                       Case C-141 /96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                            ( 96/C 180/54 )
 1 , declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
       adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       Directive 91 /414/EEC ('), the Federal Republic of                 European Communities by an order of the Fifth Senate of
       Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC          the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 14 March
       Treaty and under that Directive;                                    1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 29 April
                                                                           1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt
2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .                                Osnabriick-Land v. Bernhard Langhorst on the following
                                                                          questions :
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                  1 . Is it permissible under Article 22 ( 3 ) (c ) of the Sixth
in Case C-135/96 ( 2 ); the time limit for transposition expired                 Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
on 27 July 1993 .                                                                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                                 to turnover taxes (the Sixth Directive ) ( J ) for a credit
(M OJ No L 230 , 1991 , p . 1 .                                                  note within the meaning of paragraph 14 ( 5 ) of the
( 2 ) See p . 23 of this Official Journal .                                      Umsatzsteuergesetz ( Law on turnover tax) 1980 to be
                                                                                 regarded as an invoice or other document serving as
                                                                                 invoice ( Article 21 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the Sixth Directive )?
Action brought on 25 April 1996 by the Commission of the                  2 . If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative : Is it
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                             permissible under Article 21 ( 1 ) (c ) of the Sixth Directive
                                  Germany                                        for a person who accepts a credit note showing a higher
                                                                                 amount of tax than that owed by reason of taxable
                           ( Case C- 1 3 8/96 )                                  transactions, and does not contradict in that respect the
                              ( 96/C 180/53 )                                    mention of tax in the credit note, to be regarded as a
                                                                                 person who mentions value-added tax on an invoice or
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                            other document serving as invoice and is therefore liable
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                              to pay that value added tax ?