Case C-77/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de Cassation, première chambre civile, (France) by order of that Court of 20 January 2004 in the case of GIE Réunion européenne, Axa, Winterthur, Le Continent, Assurances mutuelles de France against Zurich Seguros, now Zurich España, and Société Pyrénéenne de Transit d'Automobiles "Soptrans" SA
Date: 2004-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: co-insurance, interpretation of the law

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/19

(a)

(b)

(c)

the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period
of adjustment as if it had been applied for business
activities which are presumed to be fully taxed;

2.

the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period
of adjustment as if it had been applied for business
activities which are presumed to be fully exempt;

or

the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period
of adjustment as if it had been applied for business
activities which are presumed to be partly taxed and
partly exempt in the proportion of the respective values
of the taxed sale of the freehold reversion and the exempt
grant of the 999 year lease?

Is Article 6(2) applicable when determining which court
has jurisdiction to entertain an action on a warranty or
guarantee or third-party proceedings between insurers
and, if so, is such application contingent on there being a
connection between the various claims within the mean-
ing of Article 22 of the convention or, at the very least,
on evidence that there is sufficient connection between
such claims to demonstrate that there has been no
avoidance of jurisdiction?

(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, 13.6.1977 p. 1-40.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
Cassation, première chambre civile, (France) by order of
that Court of 20 January 2004 in the case of GIE Réunion
européenne, Axa, Winterthur, Le Continent, Assurances
mutuelles de France against Zurich Seguros, now Zurich
España, and Société Pyrénéenne de Transit d’Automobiles
‘Soptrans’ SA

(Case C-77/04)

(2004/C 85/35)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Cour de Cassation,
première chambre civile (Court of Cassation, first civil chamb-
er) (France) of 20 January 2004, received at the Court Registry
on 17 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of GIE Réunion européenne,Axa, Winterthur, Le Continent,
Assurances mutuelles de France against Zurich Seguros, now
Zurich España, and Société Pyrénéenne de Transit d’Automob-
iles ‘Soptrans’ SA on the following questions:

1. Are actions between insurers on a warranty or guarantee
based on multiple insurance or co-insurance rather than
on a reinsurance agreement covered by the provisions on
matters relating to insurance of Section 3 of Title II of the
Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, as amended
by the accession convention of 1978?

Action brought on 19 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg

(Case C-79/04)

(2004/C 85/36)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 19 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by M. Patakia and B. Schima, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 2002/40/EC of 8 May 2002
implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard
to energy labelling of household electric ovens (1), or in
any event by failing to forward those provisions to the
Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive expired on
31 December 2002.

(1) OJ L 128 of 15.5.2002, p. 45.