Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  27 October 2005  in Case C-234/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional in Contse SA and Others v Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria (Ingesa), formerly Instituto Nacional de la Salud (Insalud) (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Principle of non-discrimination — Health services of home respiratory treatments — Admission condition — Evaluation criteria)
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, interpretation of the law, provision of services, public contract, single market, works contract

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 25 October 2005

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs in rela-
tion to Case C-465/02 and the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the
costs in relation to Case C-466/02;

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own
costs.

in Joined Cases C-465/02 and C-466/02: Federal Republic
of Germany and Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(1) OJ C 55, 08.03.2003.

(Agriculture — Geographical indications and designations of
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — The name
‘feta’ — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 — Validity)

(2006/C 86/01)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Language of the cases: German and Danish)

applicant

In Joined Cases C-465/02 and C-466/02: Federal Republic of
Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing, Agent, assisted by M.
Loschelder, Rechtsanwalt)
in Case C-465/02;
Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde and J. Bering
Liisberg, Agents) applicant in Case C-466/02, supported by:
French Republic, (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Colomb,
Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(represented by: C. Jackson, Agent) v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (represented by: J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and
H. C. Støvlbæk, and A. M. Rouchaud-Joët and S. Grünheid,
Agents)
supported by: Hellenic Republic (represented by:
V. Kontolaimos and I.-K. Chalkias, Agents) — applications for
annulment pursuant
to Article 230 EC, brought on 30
December 2002 — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of
V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas
and J. Malenovský, Presidents of Chambers, J. P. Puissochet, R.
Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr,
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
(Rapporteur), J. Klučka, U. Lõhmus and E. Levits, Judges; D.
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 25 October 2005,
in which it:

1. Dismisses the actions;

(Third Chamber)

of 27 October 2005

in Case C-234/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Audiencia Nacional in Contse SA and Others v Insti-
tuto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria (Ingesa), formerly Insti-
tuto Nacional de la Salud (Insalud) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services —
Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Principle
of non-discrimination — Health services of home respiratory
treatments — Admission condition — Evaluation criteria)

(2006/C 86/02)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

In Case C-234/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain), made by
decision of 16 April 2003, received at the Court on 2 June
2003,
in the proceedings between Contse SA, Vivisol Srl,
Oxigen Salud SA and Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria

C 86/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

(Ingesa), formerly Instituto Nacional de la Salud (Insalud), inter-
ested parties: Air Liquide Medicinal SL, Sociedad Española de
Carburos Metálicos SA — the Court
(Third Chamber),
composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
J. Malenovský, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal
Administrator,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27
October 2005, in which it ruled:

Article 49 EC precludes a contracting authority from providing, in the
tendering specifications for a public contract for health services of
home respiratory treatments and other assisted breathing techniques,
first,
for an admission condition which requires an undertaking
submitting a tender to have, at the time the tender is submitted, an
office open to the public in the capital of the province where the
service is to be supplied and, second, for evaluation criteria which
reward, by awarding extra points, the existence at the time the tender
is submitted of oxygen production, conditioning and bottling plants
situated within 1 000 kilometres of that province or offices open to
the public in other specified towns in that province, and which, in the
case of a tie between a number of tenders, favours the undertaking
in so far as
which was previously providing the service concerned,
those criteria are applied in a discriminatory manner, are not justified
by imperative requirements in the general interest, are not suitable for
securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue or go
beyond what is necessary to attain it, which is a matter for the
national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 184, 02.08.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 9 February 2006

in Case C-305/03 Commission of the European Commu-
nities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Sixth
VAT Directive — Articles 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3), and 16(1) —
Transaction within the territory of the country — Sale by
auction of works of art imported under the arrangements for
temporary importation — Auctioneers' commission)

(2006/C 86/03)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-305/03 Commission of the European Communities
(represented by: R. Lyal, Agent) v United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Jackson and R.
Caudwell, Agents, and N. Paines QC) — action under Article

226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 16 July
2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas,
President of the Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U.
J. Kokott,
Lõhmus (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February 2006, in which it:

Judges;

1. Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to the
commission received by auctioneers on sales by auction of works of
art, antiques and collectors' items imported under the arrangements
for temporary importation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Arti-
cles 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3) and 16(1) of the 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, as
amended by Council Directive 1999/49/EC of 25 May 1999;

2. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 226, 20.09.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 25 October 2005

in Case C-350/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landgericht Bochum, Germany in Elisabeth Schulte,
Wolfgang Schulte v Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG (1)

(Consumer protection — Doorstep selling — Purchase of
immovable property — Investment financed by a secured loan
— Right of cancellation — Effects of cancellation)

(2006/C 86/04)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-350/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Landgericht Bochum,
(Germany),
made by decision of 29 July 2003, received at the Court on 8
in the proceedings between Elisabeth Schulte,
August 2003,
Wolfgang Schulte and Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG —
the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President
of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers,
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von
Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 25 October 2005, in which
it ruled: