You are on page 1of 2

C 233/12 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 28.9.

2002

ORDER OF THE COURT Action brought on 29 May 2002 by the European Parlia-
ment against Chubb Insurance Company of Europe SA,
Commercial General Norwich Union and Royal Sun
(First Chamber) Alliance Belgium

(Case C-199/02)
of 14 June 2002
(2002/C 233/19)

in Case C-248/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from


the Landesgericht Feldkirch): Hermann Pfanner Getränke
GmbH and Others, Getränkebetrieb GmbH and Others (1) An action against Chubb Insurance Company of Europe SA,
Commercial General Norwich Union and Royal Sun Alliance
Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the
(Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Reference for a European Communities on 29 May 2002 by the European
preliminary ruling — Disclosure of annual accounts and Parliament, represented by D. Petersheim and O. Caisou-
annual report — Maintenance of a register of companies — Rousseau, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Lack of jurisdiction of the Court) Luxembourg.

The European Parliament claims that the Court should:


(2002/C 233/18)
1. order the defendants to reimburse the European Parlia-
ment the costs of repairing the storm damage caused to
(Language of the case: German) its Alucobond panels on 26 December 1999, amounting
to EUR 1 194 378,43 together with interest on account
of late payment;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports) 2. order Chubb to reimburse the European Parliament
expert’s fees amounting to EUR 2 200,64 together with
interest on account of late payment;

3. order the defendants to pay the costs.


In Case C-248/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Regional Court, Feldkirch)
(Austria), for a preliminary ruling in proceedings before that Pleas in law and main arguments
Landesgericht brought by Hermann Pfanner Getränke GmbH
and Others and Getränkebetrieb GmbH and Others on the
validity and interpretation of the First Council Directive 68/ The action is brought on the basis of an arbitration clause.
151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards The applicant takes the view that the defendant insurance
which, for the protection of the interests of members and companies are not entitled to rely upon an exclusion clause
others, are required by Member States of companies within the set out under the heading ‘storms and hailstorms’ in the
meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, supplementary general conditions of the contract of insurance.
with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout
the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41)
and of the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July
1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual
accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11)
— the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that
made an order on 14 June 2002, in which it ruled: court dated 27 June 2002, in the case of Halifax plc, Leeds
Permanent Development Services Ltd, County Wide
Property Investments Ltd against Commissioners of Cus-
The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no toms and Excise
jurisdiction to answer the questions put by the Landesgericht Feldkirch
in its order of 22 June 2001. (Case C-255/02)

(2002/C 233/20)
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the


European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties
28.9.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 233/13

Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 27 June 2002, which Industriehygiene-Service GmbH, established in Kirchheimbo-
was received at the Court Registry on 11 July 2002, for a landen (Germany), represented by Koen Van Maldegem and
preliminary ruling in the case of Halifax plc, Leeds Permanent Claudio Mereu, lawyers.
Development Services Ltd, County Wide Property Investments
Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the
following questions:
The Appellant claims that the Court should:

1. (a) In the relevant circumstances, do transactions:


— declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

(i) effected by each participator with the intention


solely of obtaining a tax advantage and — annul the Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 April
2002 in case T-339/00;

(ii) which have no independent business purpose


— declare that the Appellant has standing to bring proceed-
ings under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC for the
qualify for VAT purposes as supplies made by or to annulment of Regulation 1896/2000/EC ( 2);
the participators in the course of their economic
activities?
— remand the case to the Court of First Instance to rule on
the merits;
(b) In the relevant circumstances, what factors should
be considered in determining the identity of the
— order the European Commission to bear all costs and
recipients of the supplies made by the arm’s-length
builders? expenses of both proceedings.

2. Does the doctrine of abuse of rights as developed by the


Court operate to disallow the Appellants their claims for
recovery of or relief for input tax arising from the Pleas in law and main arguments
implementation of the relevant transactions?

The Appellant submits that the contested order should be


annulled bacause it was decided on the basis of an overly
restrictive interpretation of Article 230 EC which, the Appel-
lant maintains, no longer applies as a result of the new test for
standing introduced by the Court of First Instance in its recent
judgment in case T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré et Cia SA v. European
Commission. In the Appellant’s view, his action is clearly
admissible under this new test inasmuch as the contested
Appeal brought on 12 July 2002 by Bactria Industriehy- Regulation restricts his data protection and property rights in
giene-Service GmbH against the order made on 29 April a manner that is both definite and immediate and the Appellant
2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First has no recourse to another judicial body to protect his rights.
Instance of the European Communities in case T-339/
00 (1) between Bactria Industriehygiene-Service GmbH
and Commission of the European Communities
Furthermore, the Appellant submits that, even if the new test
is not applied, the legal assessment made by the Court of First
Instance in concluding that the Appellant was not individually
(Case C-258/02 P) concerned by the contested Regulation is contradictory, insuf-
ficiently motivated, based on an erroneous interpretation and
application of the relevant legal framework and inconsistent
(2002/C 233/21) with the predominant case-law on individual concern.

(1 ) OJ C 4, 6.1.2001, p. 9.
(2 ) of the Commission of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the
An appeal against the order made on 29 April 2002 by the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products
(Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 228, 8.9.2000, p. 6).
European Communities in case T-339/00 between Bactria
Industriehygiene-Service GmbH and Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 12 July 2002 by Bactria