Cases C-9, 10, 11 and 12/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep te Gent by judgment of that court of 3 January 2001 in the cases of S. Monnier against Govan Sports N.V., E. Van Ankeren against Govan Sports N.V., Govan Sports N.V. against P. Jacobs, and Govan Sports N. V. against D. D'Hondt
Date: 2001-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dominant position, employment service, interpretation of the law, professional sport, provision of services

C 61/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.2.2001

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
by decision of 20 December 2000 in the case of Assur-
andør-Societet, acting on behalf of Taksatorring, v Skatte-
ministeriet

(Case C-8/01)

(2001/C 61/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of 20 December 2000 by
the Østre Landsret
(Eastern Regional Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 10 January 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Assurandør-Societet, acting
on behalf of Taksatorring, v Skatteministeriet on the following
questions:

Question 1

Must the provisions 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 (1), and in particular the
provision in Article 13B(a) thereof, be interpreted as meaning
that assessment services which an undertaking provides for its
members are to be regarded as being covered by the term
‘insurance transaction’, within the meaning of that provision,
or by the term ‘related services performed by insurance brokers
and insurance agents’?

Question 2

Must Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth VAT Directive be interpreted
as meaning that exemption from VAT must be granted for
services of the type which an undertaking — which otherwise
meets the conditions set out
in that provision for VAT
exemption — provides for its members, in the case where it
cannot be demonstrated that the exemption will produce
actual or imminent distortion of competition but where there
is merely a possibility that this might happen?

Question 3

Does the issue of how remote the possibility of a distortion of
competition may be assumed to be, or whether the possibility
seems unrealistic, have any bearing on the answer to Ques-
tion 2?

Question 4

Would it be incompatible with Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth
VAT Directive to proceed on the basis that under national law
it is possible to make a tax exemption that is notified pursuant
to that provision limited in time in cases where there is doubt
as to whether the exemption might at a later stage distort
competition?

Question 5

Does the fact that assessment services are, so far as the largest
insurance companies are concerned, provided by assessors
employed by those insurance companies themselves and are
thus exempt from VAT have any bearing on the answers to
Questions 1 and 2?

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep
te Gent by judgment of that court of 3 January 2001 in
the cases of S. Monnier against Govan Sports N.V., E. Van
Ankeren against Govan Sports N.V., Govan Sports N.V.
Jacobs, and Govan Sports N. V. against
against P.

D. D’Hondt

(Cases C-9, 10, 11 and 12/01)

(2001/C 61/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgments of 3 January 2001 of
the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Court of Appeal, Ghent), received
at the Court Registry on 10 January 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the cases of S. Monnier against Govan Sports N. V.
(C-9/01), E. Van Ankeren against Govan Sports N. V.
(C-10/01), Govan Sports N. V. against P. Jacobs (C-11/01) and
Govan Sports N. V. against D. D’Hondt (C-12/01) on the
following question:

Do the provisions of the Treaty concerning the free provision
of services preclude a statutory prohibition on providing
employment procurement services for paid sportspersons
(whether or not they are professionals) and/or does the holding
of a monopoly on the provision of such services for such
sportspersons by the Vlaamse Dienst voor Arbeidsbemiddeling
(Flemish Employment Procurement Service) constitute an
abuse of a dominant position? Do the provisions of the Royal
Decree of 28 November 1975 thus infringe the provisions of
Community law, and in particular Articles 86 and 90(1) of the
EC Treaty, in so far as that Royal Decree confers the exclusive
right to procure employment for paid (professional or non-
professional) sportspersons on a public employment agency,
in so far as that statutory provision also renders the actual
pursuit of such activities by private employment agencies
impossible by maintaining in force a statutory provision under
which such activities are prohibited and non-observance of
that provision renders the agreements concerned void, and in
so far as the procurement activities concerned may extend to
the nationals or to the territory of other Member States?