Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-43/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof Finanzamt Arnsberg v Stadt Sundern (Sixth Directive — Article 25 — Common flat-rate scheme for farmers — Grant of hunting licences within the framework of a municipal forestry undertaking — Concept of ‘agricultural service’)
Date: 2005-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, provision of services, tax harmonisation

C 182/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.7.2005

that person's family and for the same period,

2. Where the legislation of the Member State of employment and
that of the Member State of residence of an employed person each
provide for an entitlement to family benefits in respect of the same
the
member of
Member State responsible for paying those benefits is, in principle,
the Member State of employment pursuant to Article 10(1)(a) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing
the procedure for
implementing Regulation No 1408/71, as
amended and updated by Commission Regulation (EC) No 410/
2002 of 27 February 2002.

However, where a person having the care of children, in particular
the spouse or partner of the employed person, carries out a profes-
sional or trade activity in the Member State of residence, the
family benefits must be paid by that Member State in application
of Article 10(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 574/72, as amended by
Regulation No 410/2002, irrespective of who is designated as
directly entitled to those benefits by the legislation of that State. In
that situation, the payment of family benefits by the Member State
of employment is to be suspended up to the sum of family benefits
provided for by the legislation of the Member State of residence.

(1) OJ C 850 of 03.04.2004.

GmbH and Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH — the Court
(Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, Presi-
dent of
the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, C. Gulmann
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
(Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2
June 2005, in which it ruled:

The court or tribunal having jurisdiction is required to disapply
national rules which prevent compliance with the obligation arising
from Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the application of review proce-
dures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as
amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating
to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts.

(1) OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 26 May 2005

in Case C-43/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
Stadt
the Bundesfinanzhof

v

Finanzamt Arnsberg
Sundern (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 2 June 2005

in Case C-15/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesvergabeamt Koppensteiner GmbH v Bundes-
immobiliengesellschaft mbH (1)

(Sixth Directive — Article 25 — Common flat-rate scheme
for farmers — Grant of hunting licences within the frame-
work of a municipal forestry undertaking — Concept of
‘agricultural service’)

(Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review
procedures concerning the award of public procurement
contracts — Decision to withdraw an invitation to tender
after the opening of tenders — Judicial review — Scope —
Principle of effectiveness)

(2005/C 182/27)

(Language of the case: German)

(2005/C 182/26)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-15/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria), made by
decision of 12 January 2004, received at the Court on 19
in the proceedings between Koppensteiner
January 2004,

In Case C-43/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by
decision of 27 November 2003, received at the Court on 4
February 2004, in the proceedings between Finanzamt Arns-
berg and Stadt Sundern — the Court
(Third Chamber),
composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
J. Malenovský and A. Ó
A. Borg Barthet, A. La Pergola,
Caoimh, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which
is as follows:

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/15

1. Article 25 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that
the common flat-rate scheme for farmers applies only to the supply
of agricultural products and agricultural services, as defined in
Article 25(2), and that other operations carried out by flat-rate
farmers are subject to the general scheme under that directive.

2. The fifth indent of Article 25(2) of Directive 77/388, read
together with Annex B thereto, is to be interpreted as meaning
that the grant of hunting licences by a flat-rate farmer is not an
agricultural service within the meaning of that directive.

(1) OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 2 June 2005

in Case C-68/04: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2001/81/EC — Atmospheric pollutants — National emission
ceilings)

(2005/C 182/28)

(Language of the case: Greek)

In Case C-68/04 Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic
Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action under Article 226 EC
for failure to fulfil obligations brought on 13 February 2004 —
the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and A. Ó
Caoimh, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005, in which it:

1. Declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and adminis-
trative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/81/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October

2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollu-
tants,
its obligations
under Article 15(1) of that directive;

the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 26 May 2005

in Case C-77/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de cassation Groupement d'intérêt économique
(GIE) Réunion européenne and Others v Zurich España,
Société pyrénéenne de transit d'automobiles (Soptrans) (1)

(Brussels Convention — Request for interpretation of Article
6(2) and the provisions of Section 3, Title II — Jurisdiction
in matters relating to insurance — Third-party proceedings
between insurers — Multiple insurance situation)

(2005/C 182/29)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-77/04: 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 Jurisdic-
tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-
cial Matters, from the Cour de Cassation (France), made by
decision of 20 January 2004, received at the Court on 17
February 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court
between Groupement d'intérêt économique (GIE) Réunion
européenne and Others and Zurich España, Société pyrénéenne
de
(First
Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N.
Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič and E.
Levits,
Jacobs, Advocate General; K.H. Sztranc,
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May
2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

(Soptrans) — the Court

transit d'automobiles

Judges; F.G.