Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 October 2003 in Case C-40/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich): Margareta Scherndl v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Korneuburg (Directive 90/496/EEC — Nutrition labelling of foodstuffs — Vitamin content — Declared value — Average value — Reference date — Permissible differences between the declared value and the value established in the course of an official check — Proportionality — Legal certainty)
Date: 2003-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, foodstuff, foodstuffs legislation, interpretation of the law, labelling, nutrition

13.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/7

3.

Protocol No 2 concerning Article 119 of the Treaty establishing
the European Community and the Protocol
concerning
Article 141 EC annexed to the EC Treaty are to be interpreted
as precluding the application of Article 119 of the Treaty and
Article 141(1) and (2) EC respectively to benefits provided
under an occupational social security scheme payable in respect
of periods of employment prior to 17 May 1990, subject to the
exception for workers or those claiming under them who have
before that date initiated legal proceedings or
raised an
equivalent claim under the applicable national law.

(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

1. Articles 1(4)(k) and 6(8) of Council Directive 90/496/EEC of
24 September 1990 on nutrition labelling for foodstuffs must
be interpreted as meaning that, first, the value of a nutrient
such as vitamin C which is indicated on a foodstuff following
an analysis of the foodstuff carried out by the manufacturer
may correspond to the value of that nutrient in the foodstuff in
question at the end of its minimum conservation period and,
second, that the determination of the permissible differences
between the value stated and the value established in the course
of an official check is, in the present state of Community law,
within the competence of the Member States.

2.

Consideration of the third question has not disclosed any factor
of such a kind as to affect the validity of Directive 90/496.

(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 23 October 2003

in Case C-40/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederöster-
reich): Margareta Scherndl v Bezirkshauptmannschaft
Korneuburg (1)

(Directive 90/496/EEC — Nutrition labelling of foodstuffs
— Vitamin content — Declared value — Average value
— Reference date — Permissible differences between the
declared value and the value established in the course of an
official check — Proportionality — Legal certainty)

(2003/C 304/09)

(Language of the case: German)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 23 October 2003

in Case C-109/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Sixth
VAT Directive — National
legislation providing for a
reduced rate for musical ensembles and soloists provided the
latter organise the concert themselves)

(2003/C 304/10)

(Language of the case: German)

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

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

In Case C-40/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederöster-
reich (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Margareta Scherndl and
Bezirkshauptmannschaft Korneuburg, on the interpretation
and validity of Articles 1(4)(k) and 6(8) of Council Directive
90/496/EEC of 24 September 1990 on nutrition labelling for
foodstuffs (OJ 1990 L 276, p. 40), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
composed of:
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which
it has ruled:

In Case C-109/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and G. Wilms) v Federal Republic of
Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma): Application
for a declaration that, by applying a reduced rate of value
added tax to services provided directly to the public by musical
ensembles or for a concert organiser and to services provided
directly to the public by soloists, but applying the standard
rate of that tax to the services of soloists working for an
organiser, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
its obligations under the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a)
of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating