Judgment of the Court (Full Chamber) of 27 April 2004 in Case C-159/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords): Gregory Paul Turner v Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Harada Ltd and Changepoint SA (Brussels Convention — Proceedings brought in a Contracting State — Proceedings brought in another Contracting State by the defendant in the existing proceedings — Defendant acting in bad faith in order to frustrate the existing proceedings — Compatibility with the Brussels Convention of the grant of an injunction preventing the defendant from continuing the action in another Member State)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Intergovernmental Convention (EU), civil law, commercial law, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation, jurisdiction, legal action

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/21

provided for in Articles 5(8) and 6(5) of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of
value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council
Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, a transfer of a totality of
assets is not deemed to be a supply of goods or services.

(1) OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.

ment which, under the criteria determined by the Member State in
question, may be considered to serve as an invoice.

(1) OJ C 156, 29.6.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-152/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Terra Baubedarf-Handel GmbH v
Finanzamt Osterholz-Scharmbeck (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17(1) and Article 18(1) and
(2) — Right to deduct input VAT — Conditions of exercise)

(2004/C 118/36)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-152/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Terra Baubedarf-Handel GmbH and Finanzamt
Osterholz-Scharmbeck — on the interpretation of Articles 17
and 18 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas,
A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29
April 2004, in which it has ruled:

For the deduction referred to in Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the first sub-
paragraph of Article 18(2) of that directive must be interpreted as
meaning that the right to deduct must be exercised in respect of the
tax period in which the two conditions required by that provision are
satisfied, namely that the goods have been delivered or the services
performed and that the taxable person holds the invoice or the docu-

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Full Chamber)

of 27 April 2004

in Case C-159/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the House
v
Lords): Gregory
Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Harada Ltd and Changepoint
SA (1)

Turner

Paul

of

brought

a
in
(Brussels Convention — Proceedings
in another
Contracting State — Proceedings brought
Contracting State by the defendant in the existing proceed-
ings — Defendant acting in bad faith in order to frustrate
the existing proceedings — Compatibility with the Brussels
Convention of the grant of an injunction preventing the
defendant from continuing the action in another Member
State)

(2004/C 118/37)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-159/02: reference to the Court under the Protocol of
3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by
the House of Lords (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Gregory
Paul Turner and Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Harada Ltd and
Changepoint SA — on the interpretation of the abovemen-
tioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1972 L 299, p.
32), as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L
304, p. 1, and – amended version – p. 77), by the Convention
of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989
on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: V.
Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans,
C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Presidents of
Chambers, A. La Pergola,
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 April 2004, in which it
has ruled:

C 118/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

The Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enfor-
cement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended
by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of
the
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October
1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Conven-
tion of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and
the Portuguese Republic, is to be interpreted as precluding the grant of
an injunction whereby a court of a Contracting State prohibits a party
to proceedings pending before it from commencing or continuing legal
proceedings before a court of another Contracting State, even where
that party is acting in bad faith with a view to frustrating the existing
proceedings.

(1) OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.

The provisions of Article 10a of Council Regulation (EEC) No
1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and to members
of their families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December
1996, and those of Annex IIa thereto must be interpreted as
meaning that the compensatory supplement, within the meaning of
the Gewerbliche Sozialversicherungsgesetz (Austrian Federal Law of
Insurance for self-employed persons
11 October 1978 on Social
engaged in trade and commerce), falls within the scope of that regu-
lation and therefore constitutes a special non-contributory benefit
within the meaning of Article 4(2a) of that regulation, so that the
situation of a person who, after 1 June 1992, fulfils the conditions
for the grant of that benefit is governed with effect from 1 January
1995, the date of the Republic of Austria's accession to the European
Union, solely by the coordinating provisions laid down by Article
10a.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(1) OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.

(Fourth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-160/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Friedrich Skalka v Sozialversi-
cherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft (1)

(Social security for migrant workers — Austrian rules on
compensatory supplements to retirement pensions — Classifi-
cation of benefits and lawfulness of the residence requirement
under Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

(2004/C 118/38)

(Language of the case: German)

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

(Austria)

In Case C-160/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Oberster Gerichtshof
for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Friedrich Skalka and Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerbli-
chen Wirtschaft — on the interpretation of Articles 4(2a) and
10a of, and Annex IIa to, Council Regulation (EEC) No
1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
members of their families moving within the Community, as
amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97
of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) — the Court (Fourth
Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the
Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges;
J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April
2004, in which it has ruled that:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-171/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Portuguese Republic (1)

(Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC — Directive 92/51/EEC
— General system for the recognition of professional educa-
tion and training — Private security services — Provisions of
in order
a Member State requiring private security firms,
that they may operate in Portugal, to have their head office
or an establishment in Portugal, to be constituted as a legal
person, to have a specific share capital and to provide refer-
ences and guarantees already submitted in the Member State
of origin — Failure to provide for recognition of professional
qualifications in the private security services sector)

(2004/C 118/39)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

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

In Case C-171/02: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Patakia and A. Caeiros), with an address for service
in
(Agent:
L. Fernandes, assisted by J.M. Calheiros), with an address for
service in Luxembourg – application for a declaration that:

Luxembourg,

Portuguese

Republic

against