Court of Justice

No C 152/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 6. 88 COURT OF JUSTICE Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Division (d) to fix, pursuant to the third subparagraph of of the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado, Article 4 (5) of the Sixth Directive, a threshold Piacenza, in the case of Comune di Rivergaro and Others below which there is no liability to tax in respect v. Ufficio Provinciale Imposta sul Valore Aggiunto, of the public activities listed in Annex D to the Piacenza Sixth Directive? (Case 129/88) (88/C 152/04) Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado [First Instance Tax Board], Piacenza, of 28 April 1988, which was received at the Court Registry on 4 May 1988, for a preliminary ruling Action brought on 10 May 1988 by Casto del Amo in the case of Commune di Rivergaro [the local Martinez against the European Parliament authority of Rivergaro], with the following local auth (Case 133/88) orities intervening in support: Salerno, Ferrara, Benevento, Campobasso, San Giovanni in Galdo (CB), (88/C 152/05) Pietracupa (CB), Salcito (CB), San Giuliano del Sannio (CB) Lucito (CB), Vinchiaturo (CB), San Polomatese An action against the European Parliament was brought (CB), Sant'Elia a Pianisi (CB), Corniglio (PR), before the Court of Justice of the European Scandiano (RE), Sala Banganza (PR), Sant'Agostino Communities on 10 May 1988 by Casto del Amo (FE), Jelsi (CB), Oratino (CB), Castellino del Biferno Martinez, residing at 27 Rue Michel Rodange, L-5252 (CB), Montefalcone nel Sannio (CB), Roccavivara (CB) Sandweiler (Luxembourg), represented by Blanche and Castropignano (CB), with an address for service in Moutrier, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for Piacenza at the Chambers of Michele Avantaggiati, and service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 16 Piacenza, with an address for service in Milan at the Avenue de la Porte-Neuve. Chambers of Francesco Tesauro, Awocato, v. Uffico Provinciale Imposta sul Valore Aggiunto [Provincial Value-Added-Tax Office], Piacenza, on the following The applicant claims that the Court should questions: 1. Declare the application admissible and well founded; 1. Are the Community provisions contained in Article 4 (5) of the Sixth EEC Directive on value-added tax 2. Annul the decision notified on 30 October 1987 immediately and directly applicable? whereby the selection board for Internal Competition LA/104 of the European Parliament refused to 2. In order to make the Italian system of value-added include the applicant on the reserve list for that competition; tax consistent with the Community provisions was the Italian legislature under an obligation under Article 1 of the Sixth Directive: 3. Order the defendant to pay the costs. (a) to lay down the general principle set out in the first subparagraph of Article 4 (5) of the Sixth Contentions and main arguments adduced in support: Directive by stipulating specific criteria for defining the activities engaged in by local auth The applicant challenges the decision of the selection orities 'as public authorities'; board on a single point, namely the assessment of his experience of translation. (b) to exclude from tax public activities which, although they may be described as commercial The selection board's assessment of the applicant's activities, are, under the national legislation, in experience before he entered the service of the European the nature of activities of a public authority; Parliament differs from that made by the Director- General for Personnel and Administration at the time of (c) in any event, not to subject to tax, in compliance the applicant's entry into the service, although the with the second subparagraph of Article 4 (5), selection board had no power to reach a different public activities where they do not lead to assessment of the applicant's experience from that of the significant distortions of competition, and to recruiting body, or arbitrarily and unilaterally to reduce specify the necessary quantitative limits; it without giving any reasons whatever. 10. 6. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 152/5 It follows that the contested decision is vitiated by an Removal from the Register of Case 202/87 (l) infringement of legal provisions and principles, and by a contravention of essential procedural requirements and a (88/C 152/07) misuse of powers. By order of 27 April 1988 the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the Register of Case 202/87: Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland. (') OJ No C 227, 25. 8. 1987. Removal from the Register of Case 428/85 (') (88/C 152/06) By order of 27 April 1988 the Court of Justice of the Removal from the Register of Case 255/87 (') European Communities ordered the removal from the (88/C 152/08) Register of Case 428/85: Commission of the European Communities v. United Kingdom. By order of 27 April 1988 the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the Register of Case 255/87: Commission of the European (') OJ No C 359, 31. 12. 1985. Communities v. United Kingdom. (') OJ No C 248, 16. 9. 1987. .

Load more