Case C-221/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  18 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Protection of species — Hunting using stopped snares in private hunting areas — Castilla y León)
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, hunting, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life, wildlife

C 165/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2006

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (represented by: K. Manji, and subsequently by M.
Bethell, Agents, and by P. Sales and J. Maurici, Barristers)

Re:

Infringement of Article 2(1) and Article 4 of Council Directive
85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects
of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ
1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3
March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Consent given without
assessment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.

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 assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption for management of
special investment funds — Scope

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of ‘management’ of special investment funds in Article
13B(d)(6) 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 has its own independent meaning in
Community law whose content the Member States may not alter.

2. Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 is to be interpreted
as meaning that the concept of ‘management of special investment
funds’ referred to in that provision covers the services performed by
a third-party manager in respect of the administrative manage-
ment of the funds, if, viewed broadly, they form a distinct whole,
and are specific to, and essential for, the management of those
funds.

On the other hand, services corresponding to the functions of a
depositary, such as those set out in Articles 7(1) and (3) and
14(1) and (3) of Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December
1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment
in
transferable securities (UCITS), are not covered by that concept.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and
Duties Tribunal, London — United Kingdom) — Abbey
National plc (with the Inscape Investment Fund as joined
party) v Commissioners of Customs & Excise

(Case C-169/04) (1)

(1) OJ C 146, 29.05.2004.

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(d)(6) — Management
of special investment funds — Exemption — Meaning of
‘management’ — Functions of a depositary — Delegation of
administrative management function)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom
of Spain

(2006/C 165/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

VAT and Duties Tribunal, London

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-221/04) (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora — Protection of species — Hunting using
stopped snares in private hunting areas — Castilla y León)

(2006/C 165/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Applicants: Abbey National plc (with the Inscape Investment
Fund as joined party)

Defendants: Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Parties

Re:

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Valero Jordana and M. van Beek, Agents)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal,
London — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno,
Agent)

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/5

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Art. 12(1)
of and Annex VI to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Authorisation by the autho-
rities of Castilla y León of hunting with snares in private
hunting areas

contract for the supply and management of fuel and heating
for heating appliances in buildings belonging to a municipality
— Award to a company the shares of which are held by
another company in which the municipality is a majority share-
holder

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court rules:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs.

(1) OJ C 179, 10.07.2004.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 May 2006
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
amministrativo regionale della Lombardia (Italy)) — Carbo-
termo SpA, Consorzio Alisei v Comune di Busto Arsizio,
AGESP SpA

(Case C-340/04) (1)

(Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Award of
contract without a call for tenders — Award of the contract
to an undertaking in which the contracting authority has a
shareholding)

1. Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
procedures for the award of public supply contracts precludes the
direct award of a public supply and service contract, the main
value of which lies in supply, to a joint stock company whose
Board of Directors has ample managerial powers which it may
exercise independently and whose share capital is, at present, held
entirely by another joint stock company whose majority share-
holder is, in turn, the contracting authority.

2. Article 13 of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993
coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in
the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectorsmust
not be applied in the assessment of the requirement relating to the
inapplicability of Directive 93/36, according to which the under-
taking to which a supply contract was awarded directly must carry
out the essential part of its activities with the controlling authority.

3. In order to determine whether an undertaking carries out the essen-
tial part of its activities with the controlling authority, for the
purpose of deciding on the applicability of Directive 93/36,
account must be taken of all the activities which that undertaking
carries out on the basis of an award made by the contracting
authority, regardless of who pays for those activities, whether it be
the contracting authority itself or the user of the services provided;
the territory where the activities are carried out is irrelevant.

(2006/C 165/09)

Language of the case: Italian

(1) OJ C 251, 09.10.2004.

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale della Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Carbotermo SpA, Consorzio Alisei

Defendants: Comune di Busto Arsizio, AGESP SpA

Intervener: Associazione Nazionale Imprese Gestione servizi
tecnici integrati (AGESI)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo
Regionale della Lombardia (Italy) — Interpretation of Council
Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures
for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1)
and of Article 13 of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June
1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunica-
tions sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84) — Direct award of a

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 May 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof) — Land Oberösterreich v ČEZ a.s.

(Case C-343/04) (1)

(Brussels Convention — Article 16(1)( a) — Exclusive juris-
diction in matters relating to property — Action for cessation
of a nuisance caused, or likely to be caused, to land by the
activities of a nuclear power station situated on the territory
of a neighbouring State — Not applicable)

(2006/C 165/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof