Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2001 in Case C-112/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf): Toshiba Europe GmbH v Katun Germany GmbH (Comparative advertising — Marketing of spare parts and consumable items — References made by a supplier of non-original spare parts and consumable items to the product numbers specific to the original spare parts and consumable items — Directive 84/450/EEC and Directive 97/55/EC)
Date: 2001-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising malpractice, application of EU law, consumer protection, dissemination of information, interpretation of the law, restriction on competition

8.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 348/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 9 October 2001

in Case C-108/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
Bench Division (Divisional Court)): Commissioners of
Customs & Excise v Cantor Fitzgerald International (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for the leasing or letting
of immovable property — Meaning — Supply of services —
Third party taking over a lease for consideration)

(2001/C 348/01)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-108/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Div-
isional Court) (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Com-
missioners of Customs & Excise and Cantor Fitzgerald Inter-
national — on the interpretation of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth
Council Directive of 17 May 1977 (77/388/EEC) 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 (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
N. Colneric (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and
R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; D. Louter-
man-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 9 October 2001, in which it has ruled:

Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977
(77/388/EEC) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
tax: uniform basis of assessment does not exempt a supply of services
which is made by a person who does not have any interest in the
immovable property and which consists in the acceptance,
for
consideration, of an assignment of a lease of that property from the
lessee.

(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 25 October 2001

in Case C-112/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landgericht Düsseldorf): Toshiba Europe GmbH v
Katun Germany GmbH (1)

(Comparative advertising — Marketing of spare parts and
consumable items — References made by a supplier of non-
original spare parts and consumable items to the product
numbers specific to the original spare parts and consumable
items — Directive 84/450/EEC and Directive 97/55/EC)

(2001/C 348/02)

(Language of the case: German)

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

(Regional Court, Düsseldorf)

In Case C-112/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landgericht
Düsseldorf
for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Toshiba Europe GmbH and Katun Germany
GmbH — on the interpretation of Article 2(2a) and
Article 3a(1)(c) and (g) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of
10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative
advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by Directive
97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of

(Germany)

C 348/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.12.2001

P.

Jann,

6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18) — the Court,
composed of:
the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, L. Sevo´ n (Rapporteur) and
M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 25 October 2001, in which it has ruled:

President

of

1. On a proper construction of Articles 2(2a) and 3a(1)(c)
of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984
concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended
by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 6 October 1997, the indication, in the catalogue of
a supplier of spare parts and consumable items suitable for the
products of an equipment manufacturer, of product numbers
(OEM numbers) by which the equipment manufacturer desig-
nates the spare parts and consumable items which he himself
sells may constitute comparative advertising which objectively
compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and represen-
tative features of goods.

2. On a proper construction of Article 3a(1) (g) of Directive
84/450/EEC as amended by Directive 97/55/EC, where
product numbers (OEM numbers) of an equipment manufac-
turer are, as such, distinguishing marks within the meaning of
that provision, their use in the catalogues of a competing
supplier enables him to take unfair advantage of the reputation
attached to those marks only if the effect of the reference to
them is to create, in the mind of the persons at whom the
advertising is directed, an association between the manufacturer
whose products are identified and the competing supplier, in
that those persons associate the reputation of the manufacturer’s
products with the products of the competing supplier. In order
to determine whether that condition is satisfied, account should
be taken of the overall presentation of the advertising at issue
and the type of persons for whom the advertising is intended.

d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Christiane Adam, épouse Urbing and Administration
de l’enregistrement et des domaines — on the interpretation
of Annex F(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)
— the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
President of
the Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 2001,
in which it has ruled:

It is for each Member State to determine and define the transactions
to which may be applied a reduced rate under Article 12(4) 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, until 31 December 1992, and under Article 28(2)(e) of
that Directive as amended by Council Directive 92/77/EEC of
19 October 1992 supplementing the common system of value added
tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT
rates), as from 1 January 1993, subject to the necessity to respect the
principle of neutrality of the value added tax.

The liberal professions mentioned in Annex F(2)
to the Sixth
Directive 77/388/EEC are activities which involve a marked intellec-
tual character, require a high-level qualification and are usually
subject to clear and strict professional regulation. In the exercise of
such an activity, the personal element is of special importance and
such exercise always involves a large measure of independence in the
accomplishment of the professional activities.

(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1998.

(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 11 October 2001

in Case C-267/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg):
Christiane Adam, épouse Urbing v Administration de
l’enregistrement et des domaines (1)

(Sixth VAT directive — Concept of liberal profession —
Managing agent of buildings in co-ownership)

(2001/C 348/03)

(Language of the case: French)

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

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 18 October 2001

in Case C-354/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Ireland (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 86/609/EEC —
Incomplete implementation)

(2001/C 348/04)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-267/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
from the Tribunal
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC)

In Case C-354/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. Wainwright) v Ireland (Agents: initially M.A. Buck-