Case C-480/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'arbitrage by judgment of that Court of 29 October 2003 in the case brought by H. Clerens against Walloon Region
Date: 2004-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC Directive, bird, hunting regulations, interpretation of the law, marketing, poultry farming, wildlife

C 35/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.2.2004

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’arbitrage
by judgment of that Court of 29 October 2003 in the case
brought by H. Clerens against Walloon Region

(Case C-480/03)

(2004/C 35/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’arbitrage
the Court Registry on
of 29 October 2003, received at
18 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
brought by H. Clerens against Walloon Region on the follow-
ing questions:

1. Must Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April on the
conservation of wild birds (1) be interpreted as not
authorising Member States to introduce rules which also
apply to birds mentioned in Annex I to the Directive that
are born and reared in captivity?

2. Must that directive be interpreted as authorising Member
States to lay down rules to protect birds born and reared
in captivity only to the extent that those rules apply solely
to trade in those birds, or may those rules apply to all the
operations which trade in birds may entail?

(1) OJ L 103 of 25.04.1979, p. 1.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

in the relevant circumstances, was the Appellant a
‘taxable person acting as such’ within Art.2(1) of the
Sixth Directive when,
it
acquired the CPUs from the UK vendors and sold
them to the non-UK purchasers?

in the 26 transactions,

in the relevant circumstances, was the Appellant
carrying on an ‘economic activity’ within Art.4 of
the Sixth Directive when, in the 26 transactions, it
acquired the CPUs from the UK vendors and sold
them to the non-UK purchasers?

in the relevant circumstances, was the acquisition by
the Appellant, in the 26 transactions, of the CPUs
from the UK vendors a ‘supply of goods’ to the
Appellant within Art.5(1) of the Sixth Directive?

in the relevant circumstances, was the sale by the
Appellant, in the 26 transactions, of the CPUs to the
non-UK purchasers a ‘supply of goods’ by the
Appellant within Art.5(1) of the Sixth Directive?

2. Do the answers to Question l(a)-(d) above give rise to any
breach of the general principles of Community law (in
particular, the principles of proportionality and legal
certainty)?

Action brought on 1 December 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Ireland

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales) Chancery Division by order of
that court dated 27 October 2003, in the case of Bond
House Systems Ltd against Commissioners of Customs
and Excise

(Case C-507/03)

(2004/C 35/07)

(Case C-484/03)

(2004/C 35/06)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales) Chancery Division dated 27 October
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 Novem-
ber 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bond House
Systems Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the
following questions:

1. Having regard to the general principles of EC law (in
particular, the principles of proportionality and legal
certainty) and to Article 28 of the EC Treaty:

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 1 December 2003 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by K. Wiedner, acting as agent, assisted by J. E. Flynn QC,
Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that,
in deciding to entrust the provision of
services to An Post without undertaking any prior
advertising, Ireland has failed to comply with its obli-
gations under the Treaty; and

2.

order Ireland to pay the Commission’s costs.