Heineken Brouwerijen BV v Inspecteur der Vennootschapsbelasting, Amsterdam and Utrecht.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Writing for the Court: Due
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:1984:307
• Date: 09 October 1984
• Docket Number: 127/83,91
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling

Avis juridique important

|

61983J0091

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 October 1984. - Heineken Brouwerijen BV v Inspecteur der Vennootschapsbelasting, Amsterdam and Utrecht. - References for a preliminary ruling: Gerechtshof Amsterdam - Netherlands. - State aids - Notification. - Joined cases 91 and 127/83.

European Court reports 1984 Page 03435

Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part

Keywords

1 . QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT - LIMITS

( ART . 177 OF THE EEC TREATY )

2 . STATE AID - PLANS TO GRANT AID - NOTIFICATION TO THE COMMISSION - OBLIGATION OF THE MEMBER STATE TO INFORM THE INTERESTED PARTIES - NONE

( ART . 93 ( 2 ) AND ( 3 ) OF THE EEC TREATY )

3 . STATE AID - PLANS TO GRANT AID - NOTIFICATION TO THE COMMISSION - OBLIGATION - EXTENT - EXTENSION TO ALTERATIONS TO THE INITIAL PLAN

( ART . 93 ( 3 ) OF THE EEC TREATY )

4 . STATE AID - PLANS TO GRANT AID - PROHIBITION ON THE PUTTING INTO EFFECT OF AID MEASURES - APPLICATION TO ALTERATIONS TO THE INITIAL PLAN - CONDITIONS

( ARTICLE 93 ( 3 ) OF THE EEC TREATY )

Summary

1 . IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY , THE COURT MAY NOT RULE ON THE INTERPRETATION OF NATIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS OR ON THE CONFORMITY OF SUCH MEASURES WITH COMMUNITY LAW ; IT MAY ONLY PROVIDE THE NATIONAL COURT WITH THE CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETATION BASED ON COMMUNITY LAW WHICH WILL ENABLE THAT COURT TO SOLVE THE LEGAL PROBLEM WITH WHICH IT IS FACED .

2.ARTICLE 93 ( 3 ) OF THE TREATY DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE NOTIFICATION TO THE COMMISSION BY A MEMBER STATE OF PLANS TO GRANT OR ALTER AID SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY MADE KNOWN TO ALL THE INTERESTED PARTIES ; SUCH AN OBLIGATION FALLS UPON THE COMMISSION ALONE WHEN IT INITIATES THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 93 ( 2 ).

3.THE OBLIGATION PROVIDED FOR IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 93 ( 3 ) TO INFORM THE COMMISSION OF PLANS TO GRANT OR ALTER AID DOES NOT APPLY SOLELY TO THE INITIAL PLAN , BUT ALSO COVERS SUBSEQUENT ALTERATIONS TO THAT PLAN ; SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE SUPPLIED TO THE COMMISSION IN THE COURSE OF THE CONSULTATIONS WHICH TAKE PLACE FOLLOWING THE INITIAL NOTIFICATION .

4.THE PROHIBITION ON THE PUTTING INTO EFFECT OF AID MEASURES WHICH IS LAID DOWN IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 93 ( 3 ) OF THE TREATY APPLIES TO THE PROPOSED AID PROGRAMME IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IN THE FINAL VERSION ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES . IF THE PLAN INITIALLY NOTIFIED HAS IN THE MEANTIME UNDERGONE ALTERATIONS OF WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS NOT BEEN INFORMED , THE PROHIBITION APPLIES TO THE PLAN AS ALTERED , UNLESS THE ALTERATION IN QUESTION IS IN ACTUAL FACT A SEPARATE AID MEASURE WHICH SHOULD BE ASSESSED SEPARATELY AND WHICH IS THEREFORE NOT SUCH AS TO INFLUENCE THE ASSESSMENT WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY MADE OF THE INITIAL PLAN ; IN THAT CASE , THE PROHIBITION APPLIES ONLY TO THE AID MEASURE INTRODUCED BY THE ALTERATION .

Parties

IN JOINED CASES 91 AND 127/83

REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE GERECHTSHOF ( REGIONAL COURT OF APPEAL ), AMSTERDAM , FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE CASES PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN

HEINEKEN BROUWERIJEN BV

AND

INSPECTEUR DER VENNOOTSCHAPSBELASTING ( INSPECTOR OF CORPORATION TAXES ), AMSTERDAM ( CASE 91/83 ),

AND BETWEEN

HEINEKEN BROUWERIJEN BV

AND

INSPECTEUR DER VENNOOTSCHAPSBELASTING , UTRECHT ( CASE 127/83 ),

Subject of the case

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 92 AND 93 OF THE EEC TREATY ,

Grounds

1 BY TWO JUDGMENTS OF 13 APRIL 1983 , WHICH WERE RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 24 MAY AND 7 JULY 1983 , THE GERECHTSHOF ( REGIONAL COURT OF APPEAL ), AMSTERDAM , REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY FOUR QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 92 AND 93 OF THE TREATY .

2THE QUESTIONS WERE RAISED IN THE COURSE OF TWO DISPUTES BETWEEN HEINEKEN BROUWERIJEN BV , THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS , AND THE INSPECTEURS DER VENNOOTSCHAPSBELASTING ( INSPECTORS OF CORPORATION TAXES ) OF AMSTERDAM AND OF UTRECHT , CONCERNING TAX PAYABLE BY HEINEKEN FOR THE PERIOD 1977 TO 1979 .

3 IN 1972 , IN ORDER TO ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEMS ARISING FROM THE CONGESTION OF URBAN REGIONS SITUATED IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE NETHERLANDS , KNOWN AS THE ' ' RANDSTAD-NEDERLAND ' ' , THE NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT SUBMITTED TO PARLIAMENT A BILL ENTITLED THE ' ' WET...