Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 19 March 2002 in Case C-224/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12 EC) — Difference in treatment of persons contravening the highway code according to the place of registration of their vehicle — Proportionality)
Date: 2002-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, discrimination on the basis of nationality, highway code, vehicle registration

C 118/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

21 March 2002

3. Article 2(1) of Directive 77/388 is to be interpreted as
meaning that the annual subscription fees of the members of a
sports association such as that concerned in the main proceed-
ings can constitute the consideration for the services provided by
the association, even though members who do not use or do not
regularly use the association’s facilities must still pay their
annual subscription fees.

in Case C-174/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Kennemer Golf &
Country Club v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(1)(m) — Exempt
transactions — Services connected with the practice of sport
— Non-profit-making organisation)

(2002/C 118/17)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

(Sixth Chamber)

19 March 2002

In Case C-174/00: Reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Kennemer
Golf & Country Club and Staatssecretaris van Financiën, on
the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(m) of the Sixth Council
Directive 77/388/EC 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 (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:

1. Article 13A(1)(m) 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 the categorisation of an organis-
ation as ‘non-profit-making’ must be based on all the organis-
ation’s activities.

2. Article 13A(1)(m) of Directive 77/388 is to be interpreted as
meaning that an organisation may be categorised as ‘non-
profit-making’ even if it systematically seeks to achieve surpluses
which it then uses for the purposes of the provision of its
services. The first part of the optional condition set out in the
first indent of Article 13A(2)(a) of Directive 77/388 is to be
interpreted in the same way.

in Case C-224/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12
EC) — Difference in treatment of persons contravening the
highway code according to the place of registration of their
vehicle — Proportionality)

(2002/C 118/18)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-224/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: C. O’Reilly and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agent:
U. Leanza, assisted by O. Fiumara): Application for a declar-
ation that, by maintaining in force a legislative rule (Article 207
of
the Italian highway code) providing for different and
disproportionate treatment of offenders according to the place
of registration of their vehicle, the Italian Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Article 12 EC), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colner-
ic, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 March 2002, in which
it:

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