Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 February 2005 in Case C-320/04 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2005-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, anti-discriminatory measure, employment policy, equal treatment, racial discrimination, social policy

C 93/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.4.2005

1. Article 13B(f) 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 precludes national legislation which
provides that the operation of all games of chance and gaming
machines is exempt from VAT where it is carried out in licensed
public casinos, while the operation of the same activity by traders
other than those running casinos does not enjoy that exemption.

2. Article 13B(f) of the Sixth Directive has direct effect in the sense
that it can be relied on by an operator of games of chance or
gaming machines before national courts to prevent the application
of rules of national law which are inconsistent with that provision.

1. The questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 82 EC, 86

EC, 87 EC and 88 EC are inadmissible;

2. Article 49 EC does not preclude the levying of a tax such as the
municipal tax on advertising imposed by the Decreto legislativo
No 507 – Revisione ed armonizzazione dell'imposta comunale
sulla pubblicità e del diritto sulle pubbliche affissioni (Legislative
Decree No 507 revising and harmonising municipal advertising
tax and bill-posting duty) of 15 November 1993.

(1) OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.

(1) OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

(Third Chamber)

of 24 February 2005

of 17 February 2005

in Case C-320/04 Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

in Case C-134/03: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Giudice di pace di Genova-Voltri) Viacom Outdoor Srl
v Giotto Immobilier SARL (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Competition — Bill-posting
services — Domestic legislation imposing a municipal tax on
advertising — Supply by municipalities of a public bill-
posting service — Power of the municipalities to regulate the
supply of bill-posting services — Internal taxation not discri-
minatory)

(2005/C 93/03)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case C-134/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Giudice di pace di Genova-Voltri
(Italy), by decision of 10 March 2003, received at the Court on
25 March 2003, in the proceedings between Viacom Outdoor
Srl v Giotto Immobilier SARL – the Court (Third Chamber),
composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
A. Borg Barthet, J.-P. Puissochet, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus,
Judges;
J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17
February 2005, in which it rules that:

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2000/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
period)

(2005/C 93/04)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-320/04 Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agent: D. Martin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Agent: S. Schreiner) – action for failure to fulfil obligations
under Article 226 EC, brought on 27 July 2004 – the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of
the Chamber, J. Makarczyk and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges;
P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 24 February 2005, in which it:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and admin-
istrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of
equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic
origin, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/3

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(1) OJ C 228 of 11. 9. 2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 24 February 2005

in Case C-327/04: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Republic of Finland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2000/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
period)

(2005/C 93/05)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

In Case C-327/04, action for a declaration under Article 226
EC, brought on 27 July 2004, Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: D. Martin and M. Huttunen) v Republic
of Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä) – the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, J.
Makarczyk and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Leger, Advo-
cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 24
February 2005, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, as regards the province of
Åland, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions neces-
sary to comply with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June
treatment between
2000 implementing the principle of equal
persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin,
the Republic of
Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

(Second Chamber)

of 1 December 2004

in Case C-498/01 P: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v Zapf
Creation AG (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No
40/94 — Absolute grounds for refusal of registration —
Article 7(1)(b) and (c) — ‘New Born Baby’ — No need to
give judgment)

(2005/C 93/06)

(Language of the case: German)

(OHIM)

In Case C-498/01 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute
of the Court of Justice, brought on 20 December 2001, Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs)
(Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, M. Schennen
and C. Røhl Søberg), supported by United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: K. Manji, assisted by M.
Tappin), the other party to the proceedings being: Zapf Crea-
tion AG,
(Lawyers:
A. Kockläuner and S. Zech) – the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen,
Judges; F.G.
Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, made an order on 1 December 2004,
the operative part of which is as follows

established in Rödental

(Germany)

1. It is unnecessary to give judgment on the appeal brought by the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM).

2. Zapf Creation AG shall pay the costs of the present proceedings.

3. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall

bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.

(1) OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.