Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2001 in Case C-191/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Kvaerner plc v Staatssecretaris van Financïen (Non-life insurance — Directive 88/357/EEC — Definition of establishment and the State where the risk is situated)
Date: 2001-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, insurance company, insurance premium, interpretation of the law, parent company, subsidiary

28.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 212/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 14 June 2001

of 14 June 2001

in Case C-178/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bezirksgericht Bregenz), concerning the application
for land registration made by Doris Salzmann (1)

in Case C-191/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Kvaerner plc v
Staatssecretaris van Financïen (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration of real
property transactions in the land register — Administrative
not judicial proceeding — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(Non-life insurance — Directive 88/357/EEC — Definition
of establishment and the State where the risk is situated)

(2001/C 212/01)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-178/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bezirksgericht
(District Court) Bregenz (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in
the context of examination of an application for land regis-
tration made by Doris Slazmann — on the interpretation of
Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) and of
point 1(e) of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European
Economic Area — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, President of
the Chamber, V. Skouris,
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;
Rodrigues,
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it has ruled:

Judges;

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction
to answer the questions raised by the Bezirksgericht Bregenz in its
order of 29 December 1998.

(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.

(2001/C 212/02)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-191/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC) from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Kvaerner plc and Staatssecretaris van Financïen
— on the interpretation of Articles 2(c) and (d) and 3 of the
Second Council Directive (88/357/EEC) of 22 June 1988
on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance
and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise
of
freedom to provide services and amending Directive
73/239/EEC (OJ 1988 L 172, p. 1) — the Court, composed of:
C. Gulmann, President of the Third and Sixth Chambers, acting
for the President, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)
and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
J.P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen, F. Macken
Jacobs, Advocate General;
and N. Colneric,
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it has ruled:

Judges; F.G.

C 212/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.7.2001

1. Articles 2(c) and (d), final indent, and 3 of the Second Council
Directive (88/357/EEC) of 22 June 1988 on the coordination
of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to
direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down
provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide
services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC permit a Member
State to levy insurance tax on a legal person established in
another Member State in respect of premiums which that legal
person has paid to an insurer, also established in other Member
State, to cover the business risks of its subsidiary or sub-
subsidiary established in the Member State making the levy. It
makes no difference if the legal person which paid the premiums
and the legal person whose business risks are covered are two
companies in the same group linked by a relationship other
than that of parent and subsidiary company.

2.

In interpreting ‘policy-holder’ or ‘Member State in which the
risk is situated’ for the purposes of Article 2(d), final indent, of
Directive 88/357, the way in which the premium relating to
the risk insured is invoiced or paid within a group of companies
is immaterial.

(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 14 June 2001

in Case C-345/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth VAT Directive —
Deductibility of tax on the acquisition of vehicles used to
carry out taxable transactions — Limitation to vehicles used
exclusively for driving instruction)

(2001/C 212/03)

(Language of the case: French)

(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam, and, subsequently,
J.-F. Dobelle and S. Seam), supported by United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: G. Amodeo, assisted
by G. Barling QC) — application for a declaration that, by
applying to vehicles used by taxable persons carrying on the
activity of driving instructors the condition that, in order for
such persons to be able to exercise their right to deduct the
value added tax charged on the initial acquisition of those
vehicles, they must be used exclusively for that activity, the
French Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 17(2) 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),
in the version resulting from Council Directive 95/7/EC of
10 April 1995 amending Directive 77/388 and introducing
new simplification measures with regard to value added tax —
scope of certain exemptions and practical arrangements for
implementing them (OJ 1995 L 102, p. 18) — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of
the
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 June
2001, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay

the costs;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 June 2001

in Case C-473/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Republic of Austria (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 95/30/EC — Protection of workers from risks
related to exposure to biological agents at work — Failure to
implement within the prescribed period)

(2001/C 212/04)

(Language of the case: German)

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

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

In Case C-345/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and H. Michard) v French Republic

In Case C-473/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: W. Bogensberger) v Republic of Austria (Agent: