Case C-475/04: Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  1 June 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/58/EC — Electronic communications — Processing of personal data — Protection of privacy — Protection of natural persons — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2006-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, data processing, data protection, electronic equipment, personal data, protection of privacy, telecommunications, transmission network

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/3

Re:

Parties to the main proceedings

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof
— Interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Taxation of
public bodies in respect of activities or transactions in which
they engage as public authorities where their non-taxation
would lead to significant distortions of competition — Possibi-
lity for a taxable private-law association to rely on that provi-
sion where it is operating a crematorium in competition with a
municipality carrying on a similar activity that is exempt or
taxed more advantageously

Applicant: innoventif Ltd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Berlin —
Interpretation of Article 43 EC and Article 48 EC — Entry in
the register of companies of a branch of a company limited by
to the
shares established in another Member State subject
payment of an advance on the costs of publication of the
objects of the company as set out in its instrument of constitu-
tion

Operative part of the judgement

Operative part of the judgement

A private person who is in competition with a body governed by
public law and alleges that that body is, in respect of the activities in
which it engages as a public authority, treated as a non-taxable
person for value added tax purposes or undertaxed is entitled to rely,
before the national court, on the second subparagraph of Article 4(5)
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 assess-
ment in proceedings, such as the main proceedings, between a private
person and the national tax authorities.

(1) OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

Article 43 EC and Article 48 EC do not preclude legislation of a
Member State which makes registration, in the register of companies,
of a branch of a limited company established in another Member
State subject to the payment of an advance on the anticipated cost of
the publication of the objects of the company as set out in its instru-
ment of constitution.

(1) OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.

Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 June 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic
Republic

Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 June 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
Berlin (Germany)) — innoventif Ltd

(Case C-475/04) (1)

(Case C-453/04) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Articles 43 EC and 48 EC —
Branch of a limited company established in another Member
State — Registration of the objects of a company in the
national register of companies — Requirement to pay an
advance on the cost of publication of the full text of the
objects of a company — Compatibility)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2002/58/EC — Electronic communications — Processing of
personal data — Protection of privacy — Protection of
natural persons — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
period)

(2006/C 178/05)

Language of the case: Greek

(2006/C 178/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Zavvos and M. Shotter, Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou and
M. Tassopoulou, Agents)

C 178/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.7.2006

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2002/58/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection
of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive
on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p.
37)

Operative part of the judgement

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor
het bedrijfsleven — Compatibility with Community law, in par-
ticular Articles 25 EC and 90 EC, of a charge imposed in a
Member State on operators landing shrimp with a vessel regis-
tered in that State — Charge also payable by such an operator
in respect of shrimp transported elsewhere in the Community
— Charge intended to finance shrimp sieving and peeling in
that State — Charge having an equivalent effect — Whether a
charge applicable to operators or to products

The Court:

Operative part of the judgment

regulations and administrative provisions necessary

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the
to
laws,
comply with Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of
personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic
communications
(Directive on privacy and electronic
communications), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under that directive.

sector

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2006
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — Visserijbe-
drijf D.J. Koornstra & Zn. vof v Productschap Vis

(Case C-517/04) (1)

(Charge on the landing of shrimp with fishing vessels regis-
tered in a Member State intended to finance shrimp sieving
and peeling equipment in the same Member State — Article
25 EC — Charges having an effect equivalent to customs
duties — Article 90 EC — Internal taxation)

(2006/C 178/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Visserijbedrijf D.J. Koornstra & Zn. vof

Defendant: Productschap Vis

A charge levied by an association governed by public law of a
Member State, on the basis of identical criteria, on national products
intended for the national market or for export to other Member States
constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to an export duty,
prohibited by Articles 23 EC and 25 EC, if the revenue from that
charge is used to finance activities which benefit only the national
products intended for the national market and the advantages stem-
ming from the use of the revenue from that charge fully offset the
burden borne by those products. On the other hand, if the advantages
accruing to the national products processed or marketed on the
national market from the use of the revenue generated by that charge
offset only partially the burden borne by those products, such a charge
would constitute a breach of the prohibition on discrimination laid
down by Article 90 EC.

(1) OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.

Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2006
(references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesger-
ichtshof
(Germany) — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs
GmbH v Ulrich Deppe, Hanne-Rose Deppe, Thomas
Deppe, Matthias Deppe, Christine Urban (née Deppe) (C-7/
05), Siegfried Hennings (C-8/05), Hartmut Lübbe (C-9/05),

(Joined Cases C-7/05 to C-9/05) (1)

(Plant varieties — Level of equitable remuneration to be paid
to the holder of a Community plant variety right — Article
5(2), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95, as amended
by Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 — Concept of ‘level of remu-
neration sensibly lower than the amount charged for the
licensed production of propagating material’)

(2006/C 178/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof