Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 21 March 2002 in Case C-267/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office)): Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Zoological Society of London (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(2)(a), second indent — Exempt transactions — Bodies managed and administered on a voluntary basis)
Date: 2002-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, United Kingdom, VAT, interpretation of the law, tax exemption

18.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/13

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force, in Article 207 of the
Italian highway code, a disproportionate difference in treatment
between offenders based on the place of registration of their
vehicles, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 12 EC);

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

19 February 2002

in Case C-256/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles): Besix SA v Wasserreini-
gungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co. KG (WAB-
Ing.
AG), Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft Dipl.

W. Kretzschmar GmbH & Co. KG (Plafog) (1)

(Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Jurisdiction in
matters relating to a contract — Place of performance of the
obligation in question — Obligation not to do something,
applicable without geographical limit — Undertakings given
by two companies not to bind themselves to other partners
when tendering for a public contract — Application of
Article 2)

(2002/C 118/19)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-256/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Besix SA and Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH
& Co. KG (WABAG), Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft
Dipl. Ing. W. Kretzschmar GmbH & Co. KG (Plafog), on
the aforementioned
the interpretation of Article 5(1) of
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978
L 304, p. 1 and — amended version - p. 77), the Court,
Jann,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, P.

F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), A. La
Pergola, J.P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
and V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 2002, in
which it has ruled:

The special jurisdictional rule in matters relating to a contract, laid
down in Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-
cial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is not applicable
where, as in the present case, the place of performance of the
obligation in question cannot be determined because it consists in an
undertaking not
to any
geographical limit and is therefore characterised by a multiplicity of
places for its performance. In such a case,
jurisdiction can be
determined only by application of the general criterion laid down in
the first paragraph of Article 2 of that Convention.

to do something which is not subject

(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

21 March 2002

in Case C-267/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division (Crown Office)): Commissioners of Cus-
toms and Excise v Zoological Society of London (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(2)(a), second indent —
Exempt transactions — Bodies managed and administered
on a voluntary basis)

(2002/C 118/20)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-267/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s

C 118/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2002

Bench Division (Crown Office), for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Com-
missioners of Customs and Excise and Zoological Society
of London, on the interpretation of the second indent of
Article 13A(2)(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 (OJ 1977 L 145,
p. 1),
Jann
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 21 March 2002, in which it has ruled:

(Fifth Chamber), composed of: P.

the Court

1. On a

the

indent

proper

second

construction of

of
Article 13A(2)(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, the condition
requiring a body to be managed and administered on an
essentially voluntary basis refers only to members of that body
who are designated in accordance with its constitution to direct
it at the highest level, as well as other persons who, without
being designated by the constitution, do in fact direct it in that
they take the decisions of last resort concerning the policy of
that body, especially in the financial area, and carry out the
higher supervisory tasks.

2. On a

the

indent

proper

second

construction of

of
Article 13A(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, the words
‘on an essentially voluntary basis’ refer to the members who
compose the organs entrusted with the management and
administration of a body of the kind referred to in that provision
and those persons who, without being designated by the
constitution, do in fact direct it, and refer also to the reward
which the latter may receive, habitually or exceptionally, from
that body.

(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

19 March 2002

in Case C-268/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Quality of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of
Directive 76/160/EEC)

(2002/C 118/21)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-268/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and C. van der Hauwaert) v
Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: M. A. Fierstra): Appli-
cation for a declaration that, by failing to fulfil its obligations
under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of Council Directive 76/160/EEC
of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water
(OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1) within the periods prescribed by that
the Netherlands has failed to
directive,
fulfil its obligations under Community law, the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet,
Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 19 March 2002, in which it:

the Kingdom of

1. Declares that, by failing to fulfil its obligations as regards the
quality of bathing water and the frequency of sampling thereof
within the periods prescribed by Council Directive 76/160/EEC
of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water,
the Kingdom of
its
obligations under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that directive;

the Netherlands has failed to fulfil

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.