This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2004/118/20
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-308/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): GIL Insurance Ltd and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Tax on insurance premiums — Higher rate applicable to certain insurance contracts — Insurance connected with the rental or sale of domestic appliances — State aid)
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-308/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): GIL Insurance Ltd and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Tax on insurance premiums — Higher rate applicable to certain insurance contracts — Insurance connected with the rental or sale of domestic appliances — State aid)
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-308/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): GIL Insurance Ltd and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Tax on insurance premiums — Higher rate applicable to certain insurance contracts — Insurance connected with the rental or sale of domestic appliances — State aid)
JO C 118, 30.4.2004, p. 11–12
(ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 30/04/2004; data publicării
- Author:
- Curtea de Justiţie
- Form:
- Informații juridice
- Link
- Link
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
30.4.2004 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 118/11 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Fifth Chamber)
of 29 April 2004
in Case C-308/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): GIL Insurance Ltd and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive - Tax on insurance premiums - Higher rate applicable to certain insurance contracts - Insurance connected with the rental or sale of domestic appliances - State aid)
(2004/C 118/20)
Language of the case: English
In Case C-308/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between GIL Insurance Ltd, UK Consumer Electronics Ltd, Consumer Electronics Insurance Co. Ltd, Direct Vision Rentals Ltd, Homecare Insurance Ltd, Pinnacle Insurance plc and Commissioners of Customs and Excise — on the interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:
|
1. |
A tax on insurance premiums such as that at issue in the main proceedings is compatible with Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment. |
|
2. |
Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, under which insurance transactions are exempt from value added tax, does not preclude, in the case of a tax on insurance premiums such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the introduction of a special rate which is identical to the standard rate of value added tax, since that tax is compatible with Article 33 of the Sixth Directive 77/388, so that the procedure provided for in Article 27 of that directive, which obliges any Member State wishing to introduce special measures for derogation from that directive to seek prior authorisation from the Council of the European Union, does not have to be complied with before the introduction of that rate. |
(1) OJ C 303, 27.10.2001.
