do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-453/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 6 November in the case of Finanzamt Gladbeck against Edith Linneweber
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, automatic game, game of chance, gaming establishment, interpretation of the law, tax exemption

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 4 September 2002 in the
case of Finanzamt Kassel-Goethestraße against Qualitair
Engineering Services Limited

(Case C-450/02)

(2003/C 70/01)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 4 September 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 12 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Finanzamt Kassel-Goethestraße against Qualitair
Engineering Services Limited on the following question:

Does the fact that a national employer but not a foreign hirer
of labour is exempt from the obligation to deduct income tax
at source where a double taxation treaty provides that the
salary paid is to be exempt from income tax constitute an
infringement of Article 49 EC?

in the case of Finanzamt Gladbeck against Edith Linneweber
on the following questions:

1.

Is Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to be inter-
preted as precluding a Member State from making the
organisation of gambling subject to value added tax if it
is exempt when organised by a licensed public casino?

2. Does Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC prohibit a
Member State from making the operation of a gaming
machine subject to value added tax if the operation of a
gaming machine by a licensed public casino is exempt, or
must the game of chance machines operated outside
casinos also be comparable for that purpose in essential
respects, for example as regards the maximum stake and
the maximum winnings, with the gaming machines in
the casinos?

3.

Is the installer of the machine permitted to rely on the
exemption laid down in Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/
388/EEC?

(1) OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 6 November in the case of
Finanzamt Gladbeck against Edith Linneweber

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that Court of 30 October 2002 in the
case of Karin Bautz against AOK Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-453/02)

(2003/C 70/02)

(Case C-454/02)

(2003/C 70/03)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Bundesfinanzhof
European Communities by order of
(Federal Finance Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 13 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
Imposition of additional public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between, on the one hand, all airports in metropolitan France and, on the other, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, French overseas department and region, air transport, intra-EU transport, public service, transport capacity

C 69/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2003

Imposition of additional public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between, on
the one hand, all airports in metropolitan France and, on the other, Guadeloupe, French Guiana,
Martinique and Réunion

(2003/C 69/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
France has decided to supplement the public service obligations relating to scheduled air services
between, on the one hand, all airports in metropolitan France and, on the other, Guadeloupe, French
Guiana, Martinique and Réunion which were published in Official Journal of the European Communities C 243
of 9 August 1997, reference number 97/C 243/02, in accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air
routes.

2.
In addition to the public service obligations referred to in the abovementioned notice C 243/02 of
9 August 1997, the minimum overall capacity, in terms of the number of seats, of the services to be
provided between the airport of Paris (Orly) and each of the four overseas departments in two consecutive
scheduling seasons is:

— 1 100 000 for the Guadeloupe service,

— 183 000 for the French Guiana service,

— 1 000 000 for the Martinique service,

— 660 000 for the Réunion service.

Slots have been reserved at Paris (Orly) airport for the services to the four overseas departments in
accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common
rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports. Air carriers interested in servicing these routes
can obtain information on these slots from the coordinator of the Paris airports.

3.

The address given in the notice 97/C 243/02 has changed to the following:

Direction générale de l'aviation civile
Direction des transports aériens
50, rue Henry-Farman
F-75720 Paris Cedex 15.
Case C-450/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 4 September 2002 in the case of Finanzamt Kassel-Goethestraße against Qualitair Engineering Services Limited
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: double taxation, employer, interpretation of the law, migrant worker, public sector, tax exemption, tax on employment income

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 4 September 2002 in the
case of Finanzamt Kassel-Goethestraße against Qualitair
Engineering Services Limited

(Case C-450/02)

(2003/C 70/01)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 4 September 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 12 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Finanzamt Kassel-Goethestraße against Qualitair
Engineering Services Limited on the following question:

Does the fact that a national employer but not a foreign hirer
of labour is exempt from the obligation to deduct income tax
at source where a double taxation treaty provides that the
salary paid is to be exempt from income tax constitute an
infringement of Article 49 EC?

in the case of Finanzamt Gladbeck against Edith Linneweber
on the following questions:

1.

Is Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to be inter-
preted as precluding a Member State from making the
organisation of gambling subject to value added tax if it
is exempt when organised by a licensed public casino?

2. Does Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC prohibit a
Member State from making the operation of a gaming
machine subject to value added tax if the operation of a
gaming machine by a licensed public casino is exempt, or
must the game of chance machines operated outside
casinos also be comparable for that purpose in essential
respects, for example as regards the maximum stake and
the maximum winnings, with the gaming machines in
the casinos?

3.

Is the installer of the machine permitted to rely on the
exemption laid down in Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/
388/EEC?

(1) OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 6 November in the case of
Finanzamt Gladbeck against Edith Linneweber

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that Court of 30 October 2002 in the
case of Karin Bautz against AOK Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-453/02)

(2003/C 70/02)

(Case C-454/02)

(2003/C 70/03)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Bundesfinanzhof
European Communities by order of
(Federal Finance Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 13 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
Case T-355/02: Action brought on 29 November 2002 by Mühlens GmbH & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cosmetic product, trade-mark law

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/23

Action brought on 29 November 2002 by Mühlens GmbH
& Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Board:

Dismissal of the opposition

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal

Grounds of claim:

— The goods are partly ident-
ical, or to a great extent
similar

— There is great similarity in
relation to the marks

— There is a risk of confusion
between the marks that are
comparable

(Case T-355/02)

(2003/C 70/38)

(Language of the case to be decided in accordance with Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
drafted: German)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
29 November 2002 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG, Köln
(Germany), represented by T. Schulte-Beckhausen. Also a party
before the Board of Appeal: Zirh International CDRP, New
York, United States of America

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 13 December 2002 by Dorte Schmidt-
Brown against Commission of the European Communities

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of

1 October 2002 (File No R 657/2001-2;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

(Case T-387/02)

(2003/C 70/39)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case: French)

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

ZIRH International CDRP

Community trade mark Word mark ‘ZIRH’ for goods and
services in Classes 3 and 42 (inter
concerned:
alia, Soaps; perfumery; essential
oils; cosmetics; hair lotions and
Hygienic and beauty care services)
— Application No 1316744

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 December 2002 by Dorte
Schmidt-Brown, residing in Wellen (Germany), represented by
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.

Owner of the right to
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

The applicant

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 26 April 2002

rejecting the applicant’s request seeking:

Trade mark or
sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

The figurative mark ‘Sir’ for Goods
in Class 3 (Perfumery, essential
oils, cosmetics, dentifrices, soaps,
hair lotions.

— aid and assistance from her institution in the action
brought before the courts of the United Kingdom
against Eurogramme Ltd;
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

21 March 2003

(2003/C 69/01)

1 euro =

USD

JPY

DKK

GBP

SEK

CHF

ISK

NOK

BGN

CYP

CZK

EEK

HUF

LTL

Currency

US dollar

Japanese yen

Danish krone

Pound sterling

Swedish krona

Swiss franc

Iceland króna

Norwegian krone

Bulgarian lev

Cyprus pound

Czech koruna

Estonian kroon

Hungarian forint

Lithuanian litas

Exchange
rate

1,0572

127,82

7,4281

0,6757

9,164

1,4756

85,04

7,8615

1,952

LVL

MTL

PLN

ROL

SIT

SKK

TRL

AUD

CAD

Currency

Latvian lats

Maltese lira

Polish zloty

Romanian leu

Slovenian tolar

Slovak koruna

Turkish lira

Australian dollar

Canadian dollar

0,58377

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

31,65

NZD

New Zealand dollar

15,6466

SGD

Singapore dollar

Exchange
rate

0,6183

0,4217

4,3087

35 785

231,7525

41,915

1 820 000

1,7831

1,5654

8,2449

1,919

1,8699

246,42

KRW

South Korean won

1 319,07

3,4521

ZAR

South African rand

8,617

___________
(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-66/03: Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, chemical product, national implementing measure, occupational health, occupational safety, safety standard

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/19

Rennes, Septième Chambre (Court of Appeal, Rennes, Seventh
Chamber) of 5 February 2003, received at the Court Registry
on 10 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Alain Rousseau against Association Comité Économique
Régional Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL) on the
following questions:

Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-66/03)

(2003/C 70/30)

In view of the provisions of Article 3 of Council Regulation
No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 (1), where a Member State
applies the provisions of Article 15b(1) and (8) of Council
Regulation No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 (2) by making certain
production and marketing rules mandatory for producers
established within the area of an economic committee who do
not belong to it and by making them liable for all or part of
the membership fees paid by producers who do belong to it,
is it admissible and well founded for a farmer engaged in
organic farming to invoke the principle of non-discrimination
on the ground, in particular, that the rules prescribed by the
economic committee in respect of market withdrawal render
its activity of little or no interest to him.

( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on
organic production of agricultural products and indications
referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 198
of 22.07.1991, p. 1).

( 2) Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on
the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables
(OJ L 118 of 20.05.1972, p. 1).

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by N. Yerrell, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

(a)

declare that by failing to bring into force and/or inform
the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrat-
ive provisions necessary to comply with Commission
Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a first
list of indicative occupational exposure limit values in
implementation of Council Directive 98/24/EC on the
protection of the health and safety of workers from the
risks related to chemical agents at work (1) the French
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Treaty, and

(b) order the French Republic to pay the costs of the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementation ended on 31 Decem-
ber 2001.

(1) OJ L 142, 16.06.2000, p. 47.