Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits - Manifestly irrelevant questions and questions regarding hypothetical problems in a context which precludes any useful answer - Questions not related to the purpose of the main proceedings

(Art. 234 EC)

2. Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits - Interpretation sought owing to the use of a concept in a provision of Community law adopted with a view to the transposition of a directive into internal law, but in circumstances different from those envisaged by the corresponding Community provision - Jurisdiction to provide such an interpretation

(Art. 234 EC)

3. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Discretion for Member States to apply a reduced rate - Exercise - Limits - Observance of principle of fiscal neutrality

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts. 12(4) and 28(2)(e))

4. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive - Liberal professions mentioned in paragraph 2 of Annex F - Meaning - Criteria - Activity of managing agent of buildings in co-ownership - Assessment by the national court

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 28(3)(b) and Annex F(2))

Summary

1. In the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts provided for by Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling.

Nevertheless, in exceptional circumstances, the Court can examine the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal information necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it.

( see paras. 23-24 )

2. The Court has jurisdiction to reply to questions referred for a preliminary ruling bearing on provisions of Community law where, in regulating internal situations, domestic legislation adopts the same solutions as those adopted in Community law so as to provide for a single procedure in comparable situations. It is clearly in the Community interest that, in order to forestall future differences of interpretation, provisions or concepts taken from Community law should be interpreted uniformly, irrespective of the circumstances in which they are to apply. That reasoning applies even more when the national legislation which uses a concept in a provision of Community law has been adopted with a view to the transposition into internal law of the directive of which the said provision forms part.

It follows that, in such a situation, the fact that the concept of Community law whose interpretation is requested is to be applied, in the context of national law, in circumstances different from those envisaged by the corresponding Community provision does not of itself exclude all links between the interpretation sought and the subject-matter of the main proceedings.

( see paras. 27-29 )

3. It is for each Member State to determine and define the transactions to which may be applied a reduced rate of value added tax under Article 12(4) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, until 31 December 1992, and under Article 28(2)(e) of that directive, as amended by Directive 92/77 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388 (approximation of VAT rates), as from 1 January 1993, subject to the necessity to respect the principle of neutrality of the value added tax.

That principle precludes in particular treating similar goods and supplies of services, which are thus in competition with each other, differently for VAT purposes, so that those goods or supplies must be subjected to a uniform rate.

( see paras. 36, 41 and operative part )

4. Annex F to the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes lists the activities exempted from value added tax under Article 28(3)(b) of the directive. The liberal professions mentioned in Annex F(2) to that directive are activities which involve a marked intellectual character, require a high-level qualification and are usually subject to clear and strict professional regulation. In the exercise of such an activity, the personal element is of special importance and such exercise always involves a large measure of independence in the accomplishment of the professional activities. It is for the referring court to decide whether, having regard to those criteria, the activity of managing agent of buildings in co-ownership, as envisaged by the relevant domestic legislation, must be regarded as a liberal profession.

( see paras. 39-41 and operative part )