Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2004 in Case C-171/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Maatschap Toeters, M.C. Verberk v Productschap Vee en Vlees (Beef and veal — Early marketing premium for calves — Time-limit for lodging premium applications — Rules for calculating time-limit — Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92)
Date: 2005-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, aid system, beef, interpretation of the law, slaughter premium

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/13

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 28 October 2004

(First Chamber)

of 11 November 2004

in Case C-148/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht München): Nürnberger Allgemeine
Versicherungs AG v Portbridge Transport International
BV (1)

(Brussels Convention — Articles 20 and 57(2) — Failure by
the defendant to enter an appearance — Defendant domiciled
in another Contracting State — Geneva Convention on the
Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road —
Conflict between conventions)

(2005/C 6/22)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-148/03: reference for a preliminary ruling pursuant
to 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, made by the Oberlandesgericht München
(Germany), by decision of 27 March 2003, received at the
Court on 31 March 2003, in the proceedings between Nürn-
berger Allgemeine Versicherungs AG and Portbridge Transport
International BV — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
and N. Colneric,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October 2004,
the operative part of which is as follows:

the Kingdom of Denmark,

Article 57(2)(a) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Juris-
diction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of
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, by the
Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
Spain and the Portuguese Republic and by the Convention of 29
November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, should be inter-
preted as meaning that the court of a Contracting State in which a
defendant domiciled in another Contracting State is sued may derive
its jurisdiction from a specialised convention to which the first State is
a party as well and which contains specific rules on jurisdiction, even
where the defendant,
in the course of the proceedings in question,
submits no pleas on the merits.

(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.

in Case C-171/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Maatschap
Toeters, M.C. Verberk v Productschap Vee en Vlees (1)

(Beef and veal — Early marketing premium for calves —
Time-limit for lodging premium applications — Rules for
calculating time-limit — Validity of Regulation (EEC) No
3886/92)

(2005/C 6/23)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-171/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfs-
leven (Netherlands), made by decision of 13 April 2003,
received at the Court on 14 April 2003, in the proceedings
between Maatschap Toeters, M.C. Verberk, trading as ‘Verberk-
Voeten’, and Productschap Vee en Vlees — the Court (First
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta,
Judges; M.
Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 11 November 2004,
in which it has
ruled:

1.

(a) Article 3(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom)
No 1182/71 of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applic-
able to periods, dates and time-limits is to be interpreted as
meaning that a period expressed in weeks, such as that laid
down by Article 50a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules
for the application of the premium schemes provided for in
Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common orga-
in beef and repealing Regulations
nisation of
(EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89, as amended by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December
1996, ends with the expiry of the last hour of whichever day
in the last week is the same day of the week as the day on
which the slaughter took place.

the market

(b) When applying Article 50a of Regulation No 3886/92, a
Member State may not establish the time at which a premium
application was lodged pursuant to national procedural rules
which apply within its national legal system to comparable,
national periods for making applications.

C 6/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.1.2005

(c) Article 50a of Regulation No 3886/92 must be interpreted
as meaning that a premium application may be regarded as
having been ‘lodged’
the competent
authority received it prior to the expiry of the time-limit.

in due time only if

2. Consideration of

the question referred has disclosed nothing
capable of affecting the validity of Article 50a(1) of Regulation
No 3886/92 to the extent that it excludes the applicant from
receiving the premium entirely whenever the period for making
applications is exceeded, irrespective of how and by what extent.

meaning that transactions by which one company, through a number
of contracts, simultaneously grants associated companies a licence to
occupy a single property in return for a payment set essentially on the
basis of the area occupied and by which the contracts, as performed,
have as their essential object
in a passive
manner, of premises or parts of buildings in return for a payment
linked to the passage of time, are transactions comprising the ‘letting
of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision and not
the provision of a service capable of being categorised in a different
way.

the making available,

(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.

(1) OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 18 November 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 28 October 2004

in Case C-284/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): Etat belge v Temco Europe
SA (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(b) — Exempt transac-
tions — Letting of immovable property — Licence to occupy)

in Case C-357/03 Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Republic of Austria (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 98/24/EC — Protec-
tion of the health and safety of workers — Risks related to
chemical agents at work — Failure to transpose throughout
the territory of the Member State concerned within the
prescribed period)

(2005/C 6/24)

(Language of the case: French)

(2005/C 6/25)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-284/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Brussels
(Belgium), by decision of 19 June 2003,
Court of Appeal)
in the proceedings
received at the Court on 2 July 2003,
between Etat belge and Temco Europe SA — the Court (First
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
A. Rosas (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S.
von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 18 November 2004,
in which it has
ruled:

Article 13B(b) 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) must be interpreted as

In Case C-357/03 Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: D. Martin and H. Kreppel) v Republic of Austria
(Agent: E. Riedl) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to
fulfil obligations, brought on 19 August 2003 – the Court
composed of: C.W.A. Timmermanns
(Second Chamber),
(Rapporteur), President of
J.
Makarczyk, P. Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 October
2004, in which it:

the Chamber, C. Gulmann,

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply fully with Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998
on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks
related to chemical agents at work (14th
individual Directive
within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC),
the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;