Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) 27 May 2004 in Case C-68/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D. Lipjes (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 28b(E)(3) — Services by intermediaries — Place of supply)
Date: 2004-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, delivery, distributive trades, interpretation of the law, provision of services, tax exemption

C 179/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.7.2004

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt

the measures necessary to
ensure, as regards the landfill located at La Bañeza (Spain), the
implementation of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991,
the Kingdom of
Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 323, 21.12.2002.

system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC
with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers, is not to be inter-
preted as meaning that it covers only the services of intermediaries
provided to a taxable person or to a non-taxable legal person for
the purposes of value added tax.

2. When an intermediary transaction falls within the scope of Article
28b(E)(3) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended, it is necessary,
for the purposes of determining the place where the transaction
underlying the supply of intermediary services was carried out, to
refer to the provisions of Article 28b(A) and (B) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

27 May 2004

in Case C-68/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Staatssecretaris van
Financiën v D. Lipjes (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 28b(E)(3) — Services by
intermediaries — Place of supply)

(2004/C 179/03)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-:68/03, reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a preli-
minary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Staatssecretaris van Financiën and D. Lipjes — on the
interpretation of Article 28b 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), as amended by Council Directive
91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the
common system of value added tax and amending Directive
77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers (OJ
1991 L 376, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: P. Jann (Rappor-
teur), President of
the Chamber, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola,
R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 27 May 2004, the operative part of which is as
follows:

1. Article 28b(E)(3) 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
91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Länsrätten i
Stockholms län by order of that court of 20 April 2004 in
the proceedings between Ulf Öberg and Stockholms läns
allmänna försäkringskassa

(Case C-185/04)

(2004/C 179/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Länsrätten i Stockholms län
of 20 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 April
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Ulf
Öberg and Stockholms läns allmänna försäkringskassa on the
following questions:

(i) Is a requirement in national legislation that a parent have
been resident and be covered by health insurance in the
Member State in question for at least 240 days prior to the
child's birth in order to be entitled to parental benefit in
accordance with the parent's sickness benefit compatible
with Articles 12, 17(2), 18 and 39 EC, Article 7(1) and 7(2)
of Regulation No 1612/68 (1) and Directive No 96/34 (2) on
the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by
UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC?

(ii) If question (i) is answered in the affirmative: does Com-
munity law require that, in the determination of whether
the worker fulfils the qualification period for insurance
under national
law, cumulation shall take place with a
period during which the worker was covered by the Joint
Sickness insurance scheme pursuant to the Staff Regula-
tions of Officials of the European Communities?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
for workers within the Community

on freedom of movement
(English special edition: Series I Chapter 1968(II), p. 475).

(2) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4).