Case C-103/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Reisch Montage AG v Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(1) — Cases where there is more than one defendant — Action brought in a Member State against a person domiciled in that State who is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings and a co-defendant domiciled in another Member State — Inadmissibility of the action against the person who is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings — Jurisdiction of the court seised in relation to the co-defendant)
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, appeal, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

C 224/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(f) 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 the provision
of call centre services to a telephone bookmaking organiser, which
entails the staff of the supplier of those services accepting bets on
behalf of
the organiser, does not constitute a betting transaction
within the meaning of that provision and cannot, therefore, qualify for
the exemption from VAT laid down by that provision.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Multiple defendants — Action
brought in a Contracting State against a first defendant domi-
ciled in that State and a co-defendant domiciled in another
Contracting State — Inadmissibility of the action against that
first defendant, the subject of bankruptcy proceedings — Juris-
diction of the court seised in relation to the co-defendant

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22
December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement
of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as
meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings,
that provision may be relied on in the context of an action brought in
a Member State against a defendant domiciled in that State and a
co-defendant domiciled in another Member State even when that
action is regarded under a national provision as inadmissible from the
time it is brought in relation to the first defendant.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Reisch Montage AG v Kiesel
Baumaschinen Handels GmbH

(1) OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.

(Case C-103/05) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(1) — Cases where
there is more than one defendant — Action brought in a
Member State against a person domiciled in that State who is
the subject of bankruptcy proceedings and a co-defendant
domiciled in another Member State — Inadmissibility of the
action against the person who is the subject of bankruptcy
proceedings — Jurisdiction of the court seised in relation to
the co-defendant)

(2006/C 224/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Reisch Montage AG

Defendant: Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Portu-
guese Republic

(Case C-191/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Special protec-
tion area — Alteration without scientific basis)

(2006/C 224/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

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

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes,
Agent)

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof —
Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No
44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recog-
nition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1)
— Special protection area — Alteration without scientific basis