Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-448/99: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 97/13/EC)
Date: 2001-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, competition, telecommunications, trade licence

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:

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: