Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 13 December 2001 in Case C-235/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Queen's Bench Division)): Commissioners of Customs & Excise v CSC Financial Services Ltd (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(d)(5) — Exempt transactions — Transactions in securities — Negotiation — Provision of a "call centre" service)
Date: 2002-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, VAT, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, stock-exchange transaction

2.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 56/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

OPINION 2/00 OF THE COURT

Colomer, J. Mischo, A. Tizzano, L.A. Geelhoed and C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocates General,gives the following Opinion:

of 6 December 2001

Competence to conclude the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is shared
between the European Community and its Member States.

(Cartagena Protocol — Conclusion — Legal basis —
Articles 133 EC, 174(4) EC and 175(1) EC — Living
modified organisms — Environmental protection — Com-
mon commercial policy)

(1) JO C 355 of 9 December 2000.

(2002/C 56/01)

The Court of Justice has received a request for an Opinion,
lodged at the Court Registry on 27 October 2000 (1) by
the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to
Article 300(6) EC, on the following questions:

(1) Do Articles 133 and 174(4), in conjunction with the
relevant provisions of Article 300 of the EC Treaty,
constitute the appropriate legal basis for the act conclud-
ing, on behalf of the European Community, the Cartagena
Biosafety Protocol?

(2)

If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative, are
the powers that the Member States retain in matters of
environmental protection — and which might justify
their participation in the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol
— residual powers in relation to the preponderant
competence held by the Community to enter into inter-
national commitments regarding the matters dealt with
by the Protocol?

The Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President,
P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, Presidents of
Chambers, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
(Rapporteur),
J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevo´ n, M. Wathelet
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges, after hearing S. Alber,
First Advocate General, F.G. Jacobs, P. Léger, D. Ruiz-Jarabo

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

13 December 2001

in Case C-235/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Queen’s
Bench Division)): Commissioners of Customs & Excise v
CSC Financial Services Ltd (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(d)(5) — Exempt
transactions — Transactions in securities — Negotiation —
Provision of a ‘call centre’ service)

(2002/C 56/02)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-235/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Queen’s
Bench Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Commissioners of Customs

C 56/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.3.2002

& Excise and CSC Financial Services Ltd, on the interpretation
of Article 13B(d)(5) of
Sixth Council Directive
the
(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 (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola,
L. Sevo´ n (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans,
Judges, Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar:
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, has given a judgment
on 13 December 2001, in which it has ruled:

On a proper construction of Article 13B(d)(5) 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

— ‘transactions in securities’ means transactions liable to create,
alter or extinguish parties’ rights and obligations in respect of
securities;

— ‘negotiation in securities’ does not cover services limited to
providing information about a financial product and, as
the case may be, receiving and processing applications for
subscription to the relevant securities, without issuing them.

(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.

to comply with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October
1998 amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the
occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger
transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-
cates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to
facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establish-
ment in national and international transport operations (OJ
in any event, by not notifying
1998 L 277, p. 17) or,
those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that
directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
(Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, L. Sevo´ n and
M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December 2001, in
which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998
amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation
of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator
and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these
operators the right to freedom of establishment in national
and international transport operations, the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that
directive.

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

(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

13 December 2001

in Case C-107/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 98/76/EC — Failure to transpose within the
prescribed period)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arios Pagos
(Greece) by order of 10 July 2001 in the case of Alexan-
dros K. Kefalas and Others against (1) Elliniko Dimosio
(the Greek State), (2) Organismos Ikonomikis Anasigkrot-
isis Epikhirision AE, legally represented by the liquidator,
Ethniki Kefalaiou Anonimi Etairia Diakhirisis Energitikou
kai Pathitikou, (3) Athinaiki Khartopiia AE, and (4) Geor-
gios I. Tsamasfiros and Others

(2002/C 56/03)

(Language of the case: French)

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

(Case C-303/01)

(2002/C 56/04)

In Case C-107/01: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
J. Faltz) — application for a declaration that by failing to adopt
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Arios Pagos (Greek
Supreme Court) of 10 July 2001, received at the Court Registry
on 30 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Alexandros K. Kefalas and Others against (1) Elliniko Dimosio