Luxembourg, 17/03/2005 (Agence Europe) - Out of the thirty rulings by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance and the advocate general's conclusions of 10 March, the Court has issued information on the four cases below (see http://www.curia.eu.int ).
Commission v/United Kingdom: The Court points out that it considers a British decree, the VAT (Input Tax-Person Supplied) Order 1991 as incompatible with Community law. The decree allows employers to deduct VAT on sums reimbursed to employees for vehicle fuel that the employees buy. The Court finds that the UK Order does not make the right to deduct subject to the condition that the fuel bought by the employee should be used for the purposed of the employer's taxable transactions. It recalls that the Sixth VAT Directive clearly specifies the conditions giving rise to the right to deduct and the extent of that right. The directive does not leave any margin of appreciation regarding the implementation of these conditions, the Court concludes.
Laboratoire Fournier/Direction des verifications nationales et internationales: The ruling comes in response to the Administrative Court in Dijon. It points out that the principle of free provision of services is opposed to a regulation from a Member State that restricts the benefit of a tax credit only to research carried out in France. Article 244 part B of the General Tax Code in its version in force at the time of the event is examined. The Laboratoires Fournier, which has research centres in other Member States, challenged the tax measures taken against it.
EasyCar Ltd/Office of Fair Trade: The Court points out that distance car leasing contracts cannot be cancelled without an additional charge being paid by the consumer if the latter pulls out without good reason. Consumers complained that, in this kind of contract with the company EasyCar, they could only be reimbursed in the event of serious illness or, for example, in the case of natural disasters or uprisings. They went on to say that the European directive on consumer protection for contracts taken out at a distance allows for a contract to be cancelled during a certain period of time, without additional cost. The Court had to interpret a provision of the directive - a derogation foreseen for transport service contracts. It ruled that the notion of transport service included contracts pertaining to the provision of car hiring services so that such contracts cannot be cancelled by the consumer without additional cost.
European Commission / Spain: According to Advocate General Poiares Maduro, provisions in Spanish legislation limiting the right to reduce VAT on those subject to it and receiving subsidies in view of funding their activities, is contrary to Community law. The Commission introduced this approach in 2003 against Spain, considering that certain Spanish legislative provisions went against the sixth VAT directive. This directive establishes that the prorata deduction mechanism cannot be applied unless those paying the tax carry out taxable operations but when they are exonerated from taxable operations. It also sets out the prorata deduction calculation modalities. The advocate General thinks that this directive clarifies conditions for deduction rights and for their extension, as well as the conditions limiting this law, without Spain having to take other action.
The choice of affairs on which the Court press release responds to the objective criteria include legal interest in an affair, subjective criteria such as press interest.
It appears that the Court is obliged by the number of annual communications on certain rulings proposed for its site and that it has covered hundreds of cases.
This means that on 10 March, there was no media flurry involving the rulings made on the sae day for example involving: finding France guilty of having allowed household waste site in the Guyana district of Saint-Laurent in Maroni be used without authorisation, Germany where the region of Rhineland-North Westphalia authorised road projects without impact studies; interpretation for the agreement on applying the Schengen Agreement in cases where the legal authorities in a Member State decide to renounce penal convictions due to similar procedures being opened in another Member State; or the ruling that allows a Member State (Netherlands) to take “complementary measures” slaughtering animals suspected of foot and mouth disease, despite the opposition of their owners.
Also presented on the same day, conclusions from Advocate General Geelhoed on the very current question posed by the Finish Court of Cassation on whether a passenger injured in a car accident can be excluded from the benefits conferred on him in the Community “civil liability directives” if he knew or should have known that the driver of the vehicle was drunk the moment of the accident (the Advocate General replied in the negative). Juliane Kokott on the Spanish practice that he condemned and which refuses nationals from third countries, without a case by case examination, entry on the territory or a visa when the persons concerned have been identified in the Schengen computerised system the accident (the advocate general answers in the negative); or those of Juliane Kokott on Spanish administrative practice, that she condemns, and which consists in refusing entry to the territory or the issuance of a visa for third country nationals without a case-by-case examination when the persons concerned are included in the computerised Schengen Information System.