Luxembourg, 12/01/2001 (Agence Europe) - This week, after its three week break in legal proceedings, the European Court of Justice made a series of rulings concerning:
- VAT. The sixth chamber presided by Vassilios Skouris condemns France for having imposed VAT on the costs of the transporting samples between medical laboratories. When a generalist laboratory sends its samples to a specialist laboratory in view on in-depth analysis, the costs linked to this process must be exonerated from VAT as are the medical tests themselves, feel the judges.
- Agriculture. This same sixth chamber, but with its President Claus Gulmann, rejected the appeal by Greece in an agricultural case. Athens wanted to put on the Community budget the agricultural spending engaged in 1994. The Commission had refused for various reasons blaming the mismanagement or irregularities in the payment of aid to producers of meat, fruits and vegetables or wines. The Court confirms the sound basis of the Commission reproaches. The roughly seven billion Drachmas engaged will remain the responsibility of the Greek State.
- Protection of data bases. The first chamber Presided by Melchior Wathelet condemned Ireland for not having adopted in the time allocated - before 1 January 1998 - the European Directive of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of data bases. It did not support the Dublin arguments according to which the application of the Directive requires "considerable legislative work".
The Court also handed down rulings in the cases:
- Friedrich Stefan on behalf solicitor called before the Austrian courts for having, in 1991, noted a mortgage in German marks, at a time when Austria only accepted the Austrian currency. The fifth chamber and its President Antonio La Pergola recalls that the Treaty banns a Member State from refusing the currency of another Member State for the registering of a mortgage. Austria was only linked to the Treaty in 1995, date of its accession to the EU.
- Azxienda Agricola Monte Arcosu. The sixth chamber answers a question of the civil and penal court of Cagliari (Italy). This limited liability company had acquired several agricultural areas in Sardinia and wanted to gain to statute of agricultural farmer in view of receiving subsidies at a time when the regional legislation had not set conditions applicable to companies. According to the Court the company was unable to invoke European regulations on the agricultural farmers as long as the region of Sardinia did not set its statute in national law.
Furthermore, the fifth chamber rule in two customs cases that had been referred to it by the civil and penal court of Genoa to ask questions on its competence to directly judge certain cases without the company having first made a move before the customs administration and over it ability to suspend, itself, the execution on a decision by customs (Kofisa and Siples case).
