CELEX: C2006/060/20
Language: en
Date: 2006-03-11 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  19 January 2006  in Case C-90/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/1072/EEC — VAT — Refund — Taxable persons not established in the territory of the country)

11.3.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 60/10
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   
   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 19 January 2006
   in Case C-90/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
   
   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/1072/EEC - VAT - Refund - Taxable persons not established in the territory of the country)
   (2006/C 60/20)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-90/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Triantafyllou) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action for annulment under Article 226 EC, brought on 18 February 2005 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J. Malenovský, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 January 2006, in which it:
   
               1.
            
            
               Declares that, by not observing the six-month period for refunds of VAT to taxable persons not established within the country, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Eight Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005