C-261/05 Lakép kft, Pár-Bau kft and Rottelma kft

Order · Court of Justice · Hungary · 9 February 2006

No jurisdiction over a Hungarian local business tax for pre-accession periods

What is the case?

Hungarian national rules allowed local authorities to introduce a tax on economic operations. Taxpayers challenged that local tax, arguing that it had the character of a turnover tax and was therefore caught by the prohibition in Article 33 of the Sixth Directive, which allows Member States to maintain other charges only where they are not turnover taxes. The Komarom-Esztergom county court referred the question to the Court of Justice, but the periods in dispute fell before Hungary acceded to the European Union on 01-05-2004.

What is the Court asked?

Whether Article 33 of the Sixth Directive, which prohibits the maintenance or introduction of charges that can be characterised as turnover taxes, precludes national rules authorising local authorities to levy a tax on economic operations.

The Court’s decision

The Court does not answer. Ruling by reasoned order under the first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of its Rules of Procedure, it declares that it has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred. Its power to interpret EU law extends only to the application of that law in a new Member State from the date of accession, and the facts in the main proceedings predated Hungarian accession. One of the group of orders, with Ceramika Paradyz and later Exmitiani, that closes off references about pre-accession tax periods.

AI-generated and factual. Not an official document: verify against the text below.

Legislation interpreted

Article 33 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC

Subject matter

Appeal · Officials · Promotion · Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations— Complaint— Time-limits · Appealmanifestlyunfounded

Topics

Officials · Promotion · Appealmanifestlyunfounded

Record

Court: Court of Justice
Case number: C-261/05
ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2006:98
Official texts: Order of 9 February 2006 (62005CO0261)
Cite as: Order of 9 February 2006, Lakép kft, Pár-Bau kft and Rottelma kft, C-261/05, EU:C:2006:98

Order of 9 February 2006

Text as published by the Court on EUR-Lex, CELEX 62005CO0261.

Operative part

The Court:

1Dismisses the appeal;

2Orders Mr Lebedef to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 February 2006 — LaképandOthers

(Case C-261/05)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Accession to the European Union — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Application rationetemporis — Article 33 — Local tax on economic operations — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

1. Preliminaryrulings—Answercapableofbeingclearlydeducedfromexisting case-law— Applicationof Article104(3) oftheRulesofProcedure(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art.104(3)) (see para.17)

2. Preliminaryrulings—Jurisdictionof theCourt— Limits(Art.234 EC) (see paras17-21)

I -20* Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Art. 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Prohibition of taxes capable of being characterised as turnover taxes — National rules authorising local authorities to introduce a tax on economic operations

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2006 — Vounakis v Commission

(Case C-322/05 P)

(Appeal — Officials — Promotion — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Complaint — Time-limits — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint (Staff Regulations, Arts 25, thirdpara.,and90(2)) (see paras21, 24)

I - 21*