Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2005 in Case C-30/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 1999/45/EC and 2001/60/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2005-08-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, approximation of laws, dangerous substance, labelling, preparation for market

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/5

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force Decree-Law (decreto-legge)
No 192 of 25 May 2001, converted into Law No 301, entitled
‘Urgent provisions to ensure the liberalisation and privatisation of
specific public service sectors’ (legge no 301, recante disposizioni
urgenti per salvaguardare i processi di liberalizzazione e privatizza-
zione di specifici settori dei servizi publici), of 20 July 2001,
which provides for
the automatic suspension of voting rights
attaching to holdings in excess of 2 % of the capital of undertak-
ings operating in the electricity and gas sectors, where those hold-
ings are acquired by public undertakings not quoted on regulated
financial markets and enjoying a dominant position in their own
domestic markets, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Article 56 EC;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 156 of 12.06.2004.

lawyer, appellant, the other party to the proceedings being:
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs)
(OHIM), represented by A. Rassat, acting as
Agent, defendant at first instance — the Court (First Chamber),
composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, K.
Schiemann, E.
Judges; D.
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
gave a judgment on 30 June 2005, in which it:

Juhász and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur),

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Eurocermex SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 217 of 28.08.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 30 June 2005

(Fifth Chamber)

of 30 June 2005

in Case C-286/04 P: Eurocermex SA v Office for Harmoni-
sation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) and (3)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Three-dimensional shape of
a long-neck bottle in the neck of which a slice of lemon has
been plugged — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive
character)

(2005/C 205/09)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-286/04 P, appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of
the Court of Justice, brought on 29 June 2004, Eurocermex
SA, established in Evere (Belgium), represented by A. Bertrand,

in Case C-30/05: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tives 1999/45/EC and 2001/60/EC — Failure to transpose
within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 205/10)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-30/05 Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: C.F. Durand and F. Simonetti) v Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226
EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 28 January 2005
(Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de
— the Court
Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. Klučka
(Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 June 2005, in which it:

C 205/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.8.2005

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed periods,
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approxima-
tion of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
Member States relating to the classification, packaging and label-
ling of dangerous preparations, and Commission Directive
2001/60/EC of 7 August 2001 adapting to technical progress
Directive 1999/45, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
to fulfil its obligations under those directives.

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

(1) OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te 's-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that court of 16
February 2005 in V.O.F. Dressuurstal Jespers v Inspecteur
van de Belastingsdienst/Zuidwest/kantoor Breda van de
Rijksbelastingdienst

capable of participating in (dressage) competitions at a
higher level than before such training, is there production
as referred to in Question 1(a) above?

2.

Is it material to the reply to these questions whether there
is a change to the horse which can be measured objec-
tively, such as, for example, it being or becoming entitled
to compete in a higher dressage class?

3. Does it make any difference in this regard whether the
horse concerned also actually attains the intended objec-
tive (the supply by the producer) or that the horse does
not attain the objective sought by its training on account
of problems relating to health or ability, for example?

4. What are the consequences of the answer to Questions 2
and 3 having regard to the fact that this case concerns a
recurrent charge where the tax owed is paid periodically
by declaration?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation of
the Member State relating to turnover
taxes— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145 of 13 June 1977, p. 1).

the laws of

(Case C-233/05)

(2005/C 205/11)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep te Brussel by judgment of that court of 25 May
2005 in 1. The Belgian State, represented by the Minister
for Social Affairs, 2. The Belgian State, represented by the
State Secretary for Public Health v BVBA De Backer

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te 's-Herto-
genbosch ('s-Hertogenbosch Regional Court of Appeal) of 16
February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 30 May
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
V.O.F. Dressuurstal Jespers and Inspecteur van de Belastings-
dienst/Zuidwest/kantoor Breda van de Rijksbelastingdienst on
the following questions:

1(a)

In the case in which a horse that has not been broken in
is trained to make it suitable for certain uses, such as, for
example, use as a riding horse, is a new article created
and is there therefore production within the terms of
Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive? (1)

1(b) In the case in which,

for example, a horse which is
already suitable for certain uses such as referred to in
Question 1(a) above is trained in such a way that it is

(Case C-234/05)

(2005/C 205/12)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep te
Brussel (Brussels Court of Appeal) (Belgium) of 25 May 2005,
received at the Court Registry on 27 May 2005, for a preli-
minary ruling in the proceedings between 1. The Belgian State,
represented by the Minister for Social Affairs 2. The Belgian
State, represented by the State Secretary for Public Health, and
B.V.B.A. De Backer on the following question: