Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-207/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Novara in Paolo Vergani v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona (Social policy — Equal pay and equal treatment for men and women — Redundancy payment — Tax treatment determined by reference to age — Tax advantage)
Date: 2005-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: early retirement, interpretation of the law, older worker, tax on income, tax system

C 217/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2005

1. In the case of a broadcast of the kind at issue in this case, Council
Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination
of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright
applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission does
not preclude the fee for phonogram use being governed not only by
the law of the Member State in whose territory the broadcasting
company is established but also by the legislation of the Member
State in which, for technical reasons, the terrestrial transmitter
broadcasting to the first State is located.

2. Article 8(2) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November
1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights
related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be
interpreted as meaning that, for determination of the equitable
remuneration mentioned in that provision,
the broadcasting
company is not entitled unilaterally to deduct from the amount of
the royalty for phonogram use payable in the Member State in
which it is established the amount of the royalty paid or claimed
in the Member State in whose territory the terrestrial transmitter
broadcasting to the first State is located.

(1) OJ C 156 of 12. 06.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), A. La
Pergola, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh,
Judges; M. Poiares
Maduro, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it
ruled:

as

amended

by Commission Regulation

Article 10(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91 of 5
June 1991 introducing detailed rules for implementing Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 1906/90 on certain marketing standards for poul-
trymeat,
(EC) No
1321/2002 of 22 July 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that
(‘kontrollierte
the wording
Aufzucht’) constitutes an indication of the type of farming and for
that reason that article does not allow an undertaking to include that
wording on the labelling of a product falling within the scope of that
regulation.

‘reared under

conditions’

controlled

(1) OJ C 190 of 24.07.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-207/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Novara in Paolo
Vergani v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona (1)

in Case C-203/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main in Gebrüder Stolle
GmbH & Co. KG v Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten
GmbH (1)

(Social policy — Equal pay and equal treatment for men and
women — Redundancy payment — Tax treatment deter-
mined by reference to age — Tax advantage)

(Poultrymeat — Marketing standards — Prohibition on
including certain indications concerning the type of farming
on labelling — Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91)

(2005/C 217/39)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(2005/C 217/38)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-203/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main
(Germany), made by decision of 28 April 2004, received at the
Court on 7 May 2004, in the proceedings between Gebrüder
Stolle GmbH & Co. KG and Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten
GmbH — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas,

In Case C-207/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di
Novara (Italy), made by decision of 26 April 2004, received at
the Court on 10 May 2004, in the proceedings between Paolo
Vergani and Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona, — the
Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the
Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), K. Schiemann, E. Juhász
and E. Levits,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it ruled:

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/21

Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the imple-
mentation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as
regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and
working conditions must be interpreted as precluding a provision such
as that at issue in the main proceedings, which grants to workers who
have passed the age of 50 years in the case of women and 55 years
in the case of men, as a voluntary redundancy incentive, an advantage
consisting in taxation at a rate reduced by half, of sums paid on
cessation of the employment relationship.

(1) JO C 179 of 10.07.2004.

Tariff are invalid in so far as they classify sound cards for computers
such as
issue in the main proceedings under heading
8543 89 79 of the Combined Nomenclature.

those at

(1) OJ C 228 of 11.9.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-449/04: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2001/51/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
period)

(2005/C 217/41)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-449/04: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: C. O'Reilly and A.- M. Rouchaud-Joët) v Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article
226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 27 October
2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg
Barthet, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and A. Ó
Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it:

the laws,

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt

regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Direc-
tive 2001/51/EC of 28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions
the Convention implementing the Schengen
of Article 26 of
Agreement of 14 June 1985, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

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

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Joined Cases C-304/04 and 305/04: Reference for a preli-
minary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam in
Jacob Meijer BV, Eagle International Freight BV v Inspec-
teur van de Belastingdienst (1)

(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification of sound
cards for computers — Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos
2086/97 and 2261/98)

(2005/C 217/40)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Joined Cases C-304/04 and 305/04: reference for a preli-
minary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam (Netherlands), made by decisions of 13 July 2004,
received at the Court on 19 July 2004,
in the proceedings
between Jacob Meijer BV (C-304/04), Eagle International
Freight BV (C-305/04) and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst —
Douanedistrict Arnhem,
(Fourth Chamber),
composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric
and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), Judges, J. Kokott, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar; gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, the opera-
tive part of which is as follows:

the Court

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of 4 November 1997
and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98 of 26 October 1998
amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs