Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  17 November 2005  in Case C-73/05: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/34/EC — Organisation of working time)
Date: 2006-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, arrangement of working time, carrier, crew, organisation of work, working time

C 22/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.1.2006

1. Article 2(1) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that
where two or more elements or acts supplied by a taxable person
to a customer, being a typical consumer, are so closely linked that
they form objectively, from an economic point of view, a whole
transaction, which it would be artificial to split, all those elements
or acts constitute a single supply for purposes of the application of
VAT;

2. This is true of a transaction by which a taxable person supplies to
a consumer standard software previously developed, put on the
market and recorded on a carrier and subsequently customises that
software to that purchaser's specific requirements, even where sepa-
rate prices are paid;

3. Article 6(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as
meaning that a single supply such as that referred to in paragraph
2 of this operative part is to be classified as a 'supply of services'
where it is apparent that the customisation in question is neither
minor nor ancillary but, on the contrary, predominates; such is the
case in particular where in the light of factors such as its extent,
cost or duration the customisation is of decisive importance in
enabling the purchaser to use the customised software;

4. Article 9(2)(e), third indent, of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be
interpreted as meaning that it applies to a single supply of services
such as that referred to in paragraph 3 of this operative part
performed for a taxable person established in the Community but
not in the same country as the supplier.

(1) OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.

N. Dafniou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil
obligations, brought on 12 November 2004 — the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur),
acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó
Caoimh, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 November 2005, in
which it:

the laws,

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt

regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Direc-
tive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for
giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of
displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts
between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the
consequences thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2005.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 17 November 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 17 November 2005

in Case C-73/05: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2000/34/EC — Organisation of working time)

in Case C-476/04: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
No 2001/55/EC — Mass influx of displaced persons —
Temporary protection — Minimum standards)

(2006/C 22/03)

(Language of the case: Greek)

In Case C-476/04 Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Kontoy and C. O'Reilly) v Hellenic Republic (Agent:

(2006/C 22/04)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-73/05 Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: N. Yerrell) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
and O. Christmann) — action under Article 226 EC for failure
to fulfil obligations, brought on 15 February 2005 — the
Court
composed of A. Borg Barthet
(Rapporteur), acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, U.
Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 November 2005, in
which it:

(Sixth Chamber),

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/3

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative measures necessary
to comply with Directive
2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/EC
concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to
cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive, the French
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Each party shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te Amsterdam by order of that court of 21 September
2005 in Amurta S.G.P.S. v Inspecteur van de Belasting-
dienst/Amsterdam

(Case C-379/05)

(2006/C 22/06)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam
of 21 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17
October 2005,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Amurta S.G.P.S. and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/
Amsterdam on the following questions:

1. Is the exemption under Article 4 of the Wet op de dividend-
belasting 1965 [the 1965 Law on the Taxation of Divi-
dends], as described in paragraphs 5.3 to 5.5 of this judg-
ment, in conjunction with the exemption under Article 4a
of that Law compatible with the provisions on the free
movement of capital (Articles 56 to 58, formerly Articles
73b to 73d) of the EC Treaty, given that the exemption is
applicable only to dividend payments to shareholders liable
to corporation tax in the Netherlands or to foreign share-
holders with a permanent establishment in the Netherlands,
with the shares forming part of the assets of that permanent
to whom the holding exemption under
establishment,
Article 13 of the Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969
[the 1969 Company Taxation Law] applies?

2. Does the answer to the question posed at 6.1 depend on
whether the State of residence of a foreign shareholder/
company to which the exemption under Article 4 of the
Law does not apply grants that shareholder/company full
credit for Netherlands dividend tax?

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 13 October 2005

in Case C-1/05 SA: Intek Co. v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (1)

(Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order
on the Commission of the European Communities)

(2006/C 22/05)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-1/05 SA: application for authorisation to serve a
garnishee order on the Commission of the European Commu-
nities brought on 28 January 2005, Intek Co., established in
Ashgabat (Turkmenistan) (avocat: R. Nathan) against Commis-
sion of the European Communities (Agents: J-F. Pasquier and E.
Manhaeve) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A.
Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur),
A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C.
Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
order on 13 October 2005, the operative part of which is as
follows

1. There is no need to adjudicate.