Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 July 2001 in Case C-297/00: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/35/EC — Training of seafarers — Failure to implement within prescribed period)
Date: 2001-09-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, crew, maritime shipping, national implementing measure

1.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 245/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 3 July 2001

the taxable amount for the supply of a bonus in kind constituting
consideration for the introduction of a new customer includes, besides
the purchase price of that bonus, the costs of delivery, when they are
paid by the supplier of the bonus.

(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.

in case C-380/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesfinanzhof): Bertelsmann AG v Finanzamt
Wiedenbrück (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable
amoumt — Delivery costs of bonuses in kind)

(2001/C 245/01)

(Language of the case: German)

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

that

In Case C-380/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court, Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before
court between
Bertelsmann AG v Finanzamt Wiedenbrück — on the
interpretation of article 11A(1)(a) 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 assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
ris (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
3 July 2001, in which it has ruled:

Article 11A(1)(a) 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, is to be interpreted as meaning that

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 3 July 2001

in Case C-297/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 98/35/EC — Training of seafarers — Failure to
implement within prescribed period)

(2001/C 245/02)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-297/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: B. Mongin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents:
initially P. Steinmetz, and subsequently J. Faltz) — application
for a declaration that, by failing to bring into force within the
prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions, including any penalties, necessary to comply with
Council Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 amending

C 245/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.9.2001

Directive 94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of
the Grand Duchy of
seafarers (OJ 1998 L 172, p. 1),
its obligations under
failed to fulfil
Luxembourg has
Article 249 EC and Article 2 of that directive — the Court
(Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
the Chamber,
(Rapporteur),
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July
2001, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed
period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions,
including any penalties, necessary to comply with Council
Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 amending Directive
94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers, the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 2 of that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 19 June 2001

in Joined Cases C-9/01 to C-12/01 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent):
Stéphane Monnier v Govan Sports NV, Edwin van Anke-
ren v Govan Sports NV, Govan Sports NV v Pascal Jacobs
and Govan Sports NV v Dannie D’Hondt (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Activity of
procuring employment for professional sportsmen)

(2001/C 245/03)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

of Article 59 of
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 49 EC), Articles 86 and 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now
Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of
the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has made an order on 19 June 2001, in which it rules:

Public employment procurement offices are subject to the prohibition
in Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC), provided that
the application of that provision does not frustrate the specific
function entrusted to them. A Member State which prohibits any
activity of mediation and intervention between the seeking and
offering of employment which is not carried on by those offices
infringes Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(1) EC) if it
creates a situation in which public employment procurement offices
are necessarily put in a position where they contravene the provisions
of Article 86 of the Treaty. That is the case in particular where the
following conditions are met:

— the public employment procurement offices are manifestly
unable to satisfy demand on the labour market for the kind of
activities concerned;

— the actual carrying on of employment procurement activities by
private agencies is rendered impossible by the maintenance in
force of provisions of law which prohibit those activities on pain
of criminal and administrative penalties;

— the procurement activities in question are to extend to the

nationals or the territory of other Member States.

(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.

Appeal brought on 23 May 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2001
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-52/99 between T. Port
GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-213/01 P)

(2001/C 245/04)

In Joined Cases C-9/01 to C-12/01: references to the Court
under Article 234 EC from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Court
of Appeal, Ghent), Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Stéphane
Monnier and Govan Sports NV, Edwin van Ankeren and
Govan Sports NV, Govan Sports NV and Pascal Jacobs, and
Govan Sports NV and Dannie D’Hondt — on the interpretation

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2001
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-52/99 between T. Port
GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
Co. KG, represented by Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne.