Case C-535/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) by order of that court dated 10 December 2003, in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) Unitymark Ltd, 2) North Sea Fishermen's Organisation against Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Date: 2004-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU waters, fishing port, fishing regulations, interpretation of the law

C 47/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2004

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive was to be implemented
expired on 30 July 2000.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Administrative Court) by order of that court dated
10 December 2003, in the case of The Queen on the
application of 1) Unitymark Ltd, 2) North Sea Fishermen’s
Organisation against Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs

(1) OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt München by order of that Court of 24 June 2003 in
the case of SA Scania Finance France against Rockinger
Spezialfabrik für Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co.

(Case C-522/03)

(2004/C 47/32)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
München of 24 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on
6 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of SA
Scania Finance France against Rockinger Spezialfabrik für
Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co. on the following ques-
tions:

1.

2.

Is point 2 of Article 27 of the Brussels Convention of
27 September 1968, as amended by the Fourth Conven-
tion on Accession of 29 November 1996, in conjunction
with the first paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol to
the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, as
amended by the Fourth Convention on Accession of
29 November 1996, to be interpreted as meaning that
judicial documents may be served on a defendant, who at
the time of service of the document instituting proceed-
ings is domiciled in a Contracting State other than the
State of the court, only in accordance with the conven-
tions concluded between the Contracting States?

the service,

the time of

If not, is Article 12 EC to be interpreted as precluding a
national rule under which service of a judicial document
on a defendant who, at
is
domiciled in another Member State is deemed constituted
by a domestic service whereby the bailiff of the court
lodges the document instituting proceedings with the
public prosecution service, which forwards the docu-
ments for transfer by contractual or diplomatic means,
and, by registered letter with notice of delivery, notifies
the foreign party of the service which has been effected?

(Case C-535/03)

(2004/C 47/33)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Adminis-
trative Court) dated 10 December 2003, which was received
at the Court Registry on 19 December 2003, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of
1) Unitymark Ltd, 2) North Sea Fishermen’s Organisation
against Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
on the following questions:

Are:

(1) paragraph 4(b), and the part of paragraph 6(a) which
refers to paragraph 4(b), of Annex XVII of Council
Regulation 2341/2002 of 20 December 2002 (1); and/or

(2) paragraph 4(b), and the part of paragraph 6(a) which
refers to paragraph 4(b), of Annex XVII of Council
Regulation 2341/2002 of 20 December 2002 as
amended by Regulation 671/2003 of 10 April 2003 (2);
and/or

(3) Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/185 of 14 March
2003 (3) insofar as the Commission refuses to extend,
under paragraph 6(b) of Annex XVII of Council Regu-
lation 2341/2002, the number of days available to vessels
carrying the gear in the class referred to in paragraph 4(b)
of that Annex, by two days,

unlawful
because they are:

in their application to open gear beam trawlers

(a)

contrary to Articles 33 (ex 39) and 34 (ex 40) EC,

(b)

contrary to Articles 28 (ex 30) and 29 (ex 34) EC,

(c)

disproportionate,

21.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/21

(d) discriminatory, and/or

(e)

contrary to the fundamental freedom to pursue a trade or
business?

(1) fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions
for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in
Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where
catch limitations are required (OJ L 356, 31.12.2002, p. 12).
(2) amending Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 fixing for 2003 the
fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish
stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters
and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are
required (OJ L 97, 15.04.2003, p. 11).

(3) on the allocation of additional days absent from port to Member
States in accordance with Annex XVII of Council Regulation
(EC) No 2341/2002 (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under
document number C(2003) 762) (OJ L 71, 15.03.2003, p. 28).

person on the purchase of goods and services intended
for both activities,
is it necessary to include in the
denominator of the fraction for calculation not only the
annual turnover but also the value of work in progress at
the end of each year which has not yet been put on the
market and for which no value, total or partial, has been
received?

— Or to the effect that only turnover is covered?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1).

(2) CIVA (Value Added Tax Code).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Tribunal Administrativo, Portugal, by order of that Court
of 26 November 2003 in the case of António Jorge Lda
against Fazenda Pública

Action brought on 22 December 2003 by the European
Parliament against the Council of the European Union

(Case C-536/03)

(2004/C 47/34)

(Case C-540/03)

(2004/C 47/35)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo, Portugal, of 26 November 2003, received at
the Court Registry on 22 December 2003, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of António Jorge Lda against Fazenda Pública
on the following questions:

— In what sense must Article 19 of the Sixth Council
Directive of 17 May 1977 (77/388/EEC) be inter-
preted? (1)

— Is Article 23 (4) of the CIVA (2) compatible with the
abovementioned provision, when interpreted to the effect
that, where the taxable person is an undertaking engaged
in the real-estate business, carrying out works in two
sectors of activity, one being the construction of buildings
for sale (exempt from VAT) and the other contract work
(subject to VAT), in order to calculate the pro rata or
percentage deduction of VAT borne by that taxable

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 22 December 2003 by the European Parliament,
represented by H. Duintjer Tebbens and A. Caiola, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The European Parliament claims that the Court should:

— Annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, the last subparagraph
of Article 4(1), Article 4(6) and Article 8 of Council
Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right
to family reunification (1);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.