Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 January 2001 in Case C-429/97: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — VAT — Eighth Directive — Refund of VAT paid in another Member State — Sixth Directive — Place of supply — Services relating to the collection, sorting, transport and disposal of waste)
Date: 2001-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, double taxation, provision of services, waste disposal

19.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 150/7

1.

Declares that, by failing to bring into force all of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Articles 8(3) and 9(2) of Directive 97/13/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on
a common framework for general authorisations and individual
licences in the field of telecommunications services, the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

1. Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed
period the national measures transposing Articles 4(2), 6(1),
(3) and (4), 7, 8(2), (3), (4) and (6), 11(2) and 12 of
Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of
personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommuni-
cations sector, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under Article 15 of that directive;

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear the costs.

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 34 of 5.02.2000.

(1) OJ C 192 of 8.07.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 18 January 2001

in Case C-151/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 97/66/EC — Processing of personal data and
protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector —
Non-transposition)

(2001/C 150/12)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-151/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: B. Mongin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
Bellanger and A. Lercher) — application for a declaration that,
by failing to bring into force and to communicate to the
Commission within the prescribed period the national
measures transposing Articles 4(2), 6(1), (3) and (4), 7, 8(2),
(3), (4) and (6), 11(2) and 12 of Directive 97/66/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection
of privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ 1998 L 24,
p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
(Fourth
under Article 15 of
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of
the
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it:

that directive — the Court

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 25 January 2001

in Case C-429/97: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — VAT
— Eighth Directive — Refund of VAT paid in another
Member State — Sixth Directive — Place of supply —
Services relating to the collection, sorting, transport and
disposal of waste)

(2001/C 150/13)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-429/97: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: H. Michard and E. Traversa) v French Republic
(Agents: initially by K. Rispal-Bellanger and G. Mignot, then by
K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam,) — application for a declar-
ation that, by refusing to refund value added tax to taxable
persons not established in France, in cases where those taxable
persons had subcontracted part of their work to a taxable
person established in France, the French Republic has failed
to fulfil
its obligations under the Eighth Council Directive
79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of
the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable
persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ
1979 L 331, p. 11), in particular Article 2 thereof — the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;
N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 January 2001, in
which it:

C 150/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.5.2001

1. Declares

that, by refusing to refund to taxable persons
established in a Member State other than the French Republic,
who are holders of a main contract for a composite supply of
services relating to waste disposal, the value added tax which
they have been required to pay to the French State in cases
where they have subcontracted part of the work covered by such
a contract to a taxable person established in France, the French
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Eighth
Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added
tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the
country, in particular Article 2 thereof;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 55 of 20.02.1998.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that
court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Winward
Industries Inc.

(Case C-54/01)

(2001/C 150/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof
of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Winward Industries Inc. on the following questions on
the interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First
Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) to
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
marks:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that
court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Linde AG

(Case C-53/01)

(2001/C 150/14)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof
of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Linde AG on the following questions on the
interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks:

1.

2.

In determining whether a three-dimensional trade mark
which depicts the shape of a product has distinctive
character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the
above directive is there a stricter test for distinctive
character than in the case of other forms of trade marks?

any

significance

In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which depict
the shape of the product, does Article 3(1)(c) of the
Directive have
independently of
Article 3(1)(e)? If so, when considering Article 3(1)(c) —
or alternatively Article 3(1)(e) — must regard be had to
the interest of the trade in having the shape of the product
available for use, so that registration is, at
in
principle, ruled out and is possible as a rule only in the
case of trade marks which meet the requirements of
Article 3(3), first sentence, of the directive?

least

(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

1.

2.

In determining whether a three-dimensional trade mark
which depicts the shape of a product has distinctive
character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the
above directive is there a stricter test for distinctive
character than in the case of other forms of trade marks?

any

significance

In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which depict
the shape of the product, does Article 3(1)(c) of the
Directive have
independently of
Article 3(1)(e)? If so, when considering Article 3(1)(c) —
or alternatively Article 3(1)(e) — must regard be had to
the interest of the trade in having the shape of the product
available for use, so that registration is, at
in
principle, ruled out and is possible as a rule only in the
case of trade marks which meet the requirements of
Article 3(3), first sentence, of the directive?

least

(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that
court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Rado Uhren
AG

(Case C-55/01)

(2001/C 150/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof
of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Rado Uhren AG on the following questions on the
interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks: