Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  9 February 2006  in Case C-415/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Supply of services linked to welfare and social security work and protection and education of children or young people)
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, child care, delivery, distributive trades, interpretation of the law, provision of services, tax exemption

C 86/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

2. Directive 85/577, and Article 5(2) thereof in particular, does not

preclude:

— a requirement that a consumer who has exercised his right to
cancel under the Directive must pay back the loan proceeds to
the lender, even though according to the scheme drawn up for
the investment the loan serves solely to finance the purchase of
the immovable property and is paid directly to the vendor
thereof;

— a requirement that the amount of the loan must be paid back

immediately;

— national legislation which provides for an obligation on the
consumer, in the event of cancellation of a secured credit agree-
ment, not only to repay the amounts received under the agree-
ment but also to pay to the lender interest at the market rate;

However, in a situation where, if the Bank had complied with its
obligation to inform the consumer of his right of cancellation, the
consumer would have been able to avoid exposure to the risks
inherent in investments such as those at issue in the main proceed-
ings, Article 4 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure
that their legislation protects consumers who have been unable to
avoid exposure to such risks, by adopting suitable measures to
allow them to avoid bearing the consequences of the materialisa-
tion of those risks.

(1) OJ C 201, of 7.8.2004.

taris van Economische Zaken, the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber,
J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen and J.
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Klčcka,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
20 October 2005, in which it ruled:

the first subparagraph of Article 236(1) of
For the purposes of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-
lishing the Community Customs Code, import duties or export duties
are legally owed where a customs duty has been incurred within the
conditions laid down by Chapter 2 of Title VII of that regulation and
where the amount of those duties could be determined by the applica-
tion of the Common Customs Tariff of the European Communities in
accordance with the provisions of Title II of that regulation.

The amount of the import duties or export duties remains legally
owed within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 236(1)
of Regulation No 2913/92 even where that amount has not been
communicated to the debtor in accordance with Article 221(1) of that
regulation.

(1) OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 9 February 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 20 October 2005

in Case C-247/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven in Trans-
port Maatschappij Traffic BV v Staatssecretaris van Econo-
mische Zaken (1)

(Community Customs Code — Repayment or remission of
import or export duties — Meaning of ‘legally owed’)

(2006/C 86/13)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-247/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijf-
sleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 28 May 2004,
received at the Court on 11 June 2004,
in the proceedings
between Transport Maatschappij Traffic BV and Staatssecre-

in Case C-415/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Staatssecretaris van
Financiën v Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Supply of services
linked to welfare and social security work and protection and
education of children or young people)

(2006/C 86/14)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-415/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nether-
lands), made by decision of 24 September 2004, received at the
Court on the same day, in the proceedings between Staatssecre-
taris van Financiën and Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede —
the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of
the Chamber, J. Malenovský, A. La Pergola, A. Borg Barthet
(Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February
2006, in which it ruled:

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/9

Article 13A(1)(g) and (h) 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
read together with Article
tax: uniform basis of assessment,
13A(2)(b) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that services as an
intermediary between persons seeking, and persons offering, a child-
care service, provided by a body governed by public law or an organi-
sation recognised as charitable by the Member State concerned, may
benefit from exemption under those provisions only where:

— the childcare service itself meets the conditions for exemption laid

down in those provisions;

— that service is of such a nature or quality that parents could not
be assured of obtaining a service of the same value without the
assistance of an intermediary service such as that which is the
subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings;

— the basic purpose of the intermediary services is not to obtain
additional income for the service provider by carrying out transac-
tions which are in direct competition with those of commercial
enterprises liable for value added tax.

(1) OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.

Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave
a judgment on 9 February 2006, in which it ruled:

1. Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on
the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial docu-
ments in civil or commercial matters must be interpreted as
meaning that
it does not establish any hierarchy between the
method of transmission and service under Articles 4 to 11 thereof
and that under Article 14 thereof and, consequently, it is possible
to serve a judicial document by one or other or both of those
methods.

2. Regulation No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that,
where transmission and service are effected by both the method
under Articles 4 to 11 thereof and the method under Article 14
thereof, in order to determine vis-à-vis the person on whom service
is effected the point from which time starts to run for the purposes
of a procedural time-limit linked to effecting service, reference must
be made to the date of the first service validly effected.

(1) OJ C 19, 22.01.2005.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 9 February 2006

in Case C-473/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hof van Cassatie in Plumex v Young Sports NV (1)

(Judicial cooperation — Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 —
Articles 4 to 11 and 14 — Service of judicial documents —
Service through agencies — Service by post — Relationship
between the methods of transmission and service — Prece-
dence — Time-limit for an appeal)

(2006/C 86/15)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-473/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Articles 68 EC and 234 EC from the Hof van Cassatie
(Belgium), made by decision of 22 October 2004, received at
the Court on 9 November 2004, in the proceedings between
Plumex and Young Sports NV — the Court (Third Chamber),
composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský
(Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and A. Borg Barthet,

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 26 January 2006

in Case C-2/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Rijksdienst voor Sociale
the Arbeidshof

te Brussel

Zekerheid v Herbosch Kiere NV (1)

(Social security for migrant workers — Determination of the
legislation applicable — Workers posted to another Member
State — Scope of E 101 certificate)

(2006/C 86/16)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-2/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium), made
by decision of 23 December 2004, received at the Court on 5
January 2005,
in the proceedings between Rijksdienst voor
Sociale Zekerheid and Herbosch Kiere NV — the Court (Fourth
Chamber), composed of N. Colneric (Rapporteur), acting for
the President of the Fourth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 January 2006, in
which it ruled: