Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-150/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt, Sweden): Svenska Staten v Stockholm Lindöpark AB and between Stockholm Lindöpark AB and Svenska Staten (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive — Exemptions — Letting of immovable property — Practice of sport or physical education)
Date: 2001-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, approximation of laws, interpretation of the law, sports facilities, tax exemption

19.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 150/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 18 January 2001

(Fifth Chamber)

of 18 January 2001

in Case C-113/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)): Herta Schmid v
Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und
Burgenland (1)

in Case C-150/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Svea Hovrätt, Sweden): Svenska Staten v Stockholm
Lindöpark AB and between Stockholm Lindöpark AB and
Svenska Staten (1)

(Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of
capital — Minimum tax on capital companies)

(Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes
— Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive —
Exemptions — Letting of immovable property — Practice of
sport or physical education)

(2001/C 150/08)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-113/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungsger-
ichtshof (Administrative Court), Austria, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Herta Schmid, acting as insolvency administrator for P.P. Hand-
els GmbH, in liquidation, and Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland — on the interpretation of
Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English
Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council
Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23)
— the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
N. Colneric, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which
it has ruled:

On its proper
construction, Article 10 of Council Directive
69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the
raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of
10 June 1985, does not preclude the levying, as against insolvent
capital companies lacking own revenue or whose annual revenue does
not exceed a certain amount, of a minimum tax, such as that at issue
in the main proceedings, payable for each quarter in respect of which
those companies have unlimited liability to corporation tax.

(1) OJ C 160 of 5.06.1999.

(2001/C 150/09)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

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

interpretation of Article 13A(1)(m)

In Case C-150/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Svea Hovrätt
(Svea Court of Appeal), Sweden for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Svenska Staten
(Swedish State) and Stockholm Lindöpark AB and between
Stockholm Lindöpark AB and Svenska Staten (Swedish State)
— on the
and
Article 13B(b) of the 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)
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,
acting as President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and
L. Sevo´ n,
Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it has ruled:

Judges; F.G.

1.

2.

The provisions of Article 13A(1)(m) and 13B(b) of the 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, preclude national legislation from providing
for a general exemption from value added tax for the supply of
premises and other facilities and the related supply of accessories
or other arrangements for the practice of sport or physical
education, including services supplied by profit-making organis-
ations.

The provisions of Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388,
read together with those of Articles 2, 6(1) and 13B(b), are
sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional for an individual to
rely on them as against a Member State before a national court.

C 150/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.5.2001

3.

The implementation of a general exemption from value added
tax for the supply of premises and other facilities and for the
related supply of accessories or other arrangements for the
purposes of the practice of sport or physical education, where no
such exemption is to be found in Article 13 of Directive
77/388, constitutes a serious breach of Community law that
can render a Member State liable in damages.

(1) OJ C 188 of 3.07.1999.

— time which a driver necessarily spends travelling to take over a
vehicle subject to the obligation to instal and use a tachograph
the driver’s home or the employer’s
and which is not at
operational centre, regardless of whether the employer gave
instructions as to when and how to travel or whether that choice
was left to the driver;

— periods of driving spent by a driver whilst performing a
transport
the scope of Regulation
No 3821/85 before taking over a vehicle to which that
regulation applies.

service falling outside

(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 18 January 2001

in Case C-297/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Nottingham Magistrates’ Court): criminal proceedings
against Skills Motor Coaches Ltd, B.J. Farmer, C.J. Burley
and B. Denman (1)

(Social legislation relating to road transport — Tachograph
record sheets — Obligation to record periods of work, breaks
in work and rest periods)

(2001/C 150/10)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-297/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nottingham
Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling
in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against
Skills Motor Coaches Ltd, B.J. Farmer, C.J. Burley and
B. Denman — on the interpretation of Article 15 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on
recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8)
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevo´ n,
Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which
it has ruled:

On a proper construction of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in
road transport, a driver’s obligation to record all other periods of
work extends to:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 18 January 2001

in Case C-448/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
97/13/EC)

(2001/C 150/11)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-448/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Nolin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration 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 (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15), the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevo´ n (Rapporteur), Judges;
P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it: