Case C-242/05: Order of the Court of 3 June 2005 (Fourth Chamber) (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — G.M. van de Coevering v Hoofd van het District Douane Roermond van de rijksbelastingdienst (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom to provide services — Leasing of a motor vehicle in a Member State other than the State of residence — Tax on non-registered vehicles which are made available to residents — Detailed rules for charging tax)
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Netherlands, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, vehicle rental, vehicle tax

C 224/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Order of the Court of 1 June 2006 (reference for a preli-
minary ruling of Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch (Nether-
lands)) — V.O.F. Dressuurstal Jespers v Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst/Zuidwest/kantoor Breda van de rijksbelas-
tingdienst

(Case C-233/05) (1)

horse, in such circumstances, cannot be regarded as being a good
produced.

2. Whether or not value added tax is to be charged on amounts
collected periodically as payment
the provision of services
comprising the training of horses is to be determined according to
the conditions laid down in Article 10(2) of the Sixth Directive.

for

(Sixth VAT Directive — Supplies under a contract to make
up work — Concept of 'good produced' — Training of a
horse — Whether or not tax is chargeable)

(1) OJ C 205 of 20.8.2005.

(2006/C 224/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

National court

Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch

Parties

Applicant: V.O.F. Dressuurstal Jespers

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Zuidwest/kantoor
Breda van de rijksbelastingdienst

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te 's-Herto-
genbosch — Interpretation of Article 5(7)(a) of Sixth Council
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
of the laws of the Member State relating to turnover taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Horse that has not been broken
trained to make it suitable for a specific use — Horse trained
for use as a riding horse capable, following training, of partici-
pating in competitions at a higher level — In both cases: new
good produced? — Importance of a change which can be
measured objectively in the horse and the attainment or non-
attainment of the objective — Tax paid according to periodic
declarations

Operative part of the order

1. Article 5(5)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17
May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member State
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive
94/76/EC of 22 December 1994 by the introduction of transi-
tional measures applicable, in the context of the enlargement of
the European Union on 1 January 1995, as regards value added
tax, is to be interpreted as meaning that there is no supply under
a contract to make up work when a horse is trained to make it
suitable for use as a riding horse or trained so as to make it
capable of participating in (dressage) competitions and that a

Order of the Court of 3 June 2005 (Fourth Chamber)
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te 's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — G.M. van de
Coevering v Hoofd van het District Douane Roermond
van de rijksbelastingdienst

(Case C-242/05) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Proce-
dure — Freedom to provide services — Leasing of a motor
vehicle in a Member State other than the State of residence
— Tax on non-registered vehicles which are made available
to residents — Detailed rules for charging tax)

(2006/C 224/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch

Parties

Applicant: G.M. van de Coevering

Defendant: Hoofd van het District Douane Roermond van de
rijksbelastingdienst

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te 's-Herto-
genbosch — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC to 55 EC —
National legislation providing for the levy of a tax on vehicles
registered in the territory and on vehicles not registered but
made available to persons residing in that Member State —
Motor vehicle hired in another State by a person residing in the
State in which the tax is levied — Full tax levied with no
account taken of the duration of the hire or use of the vehicle
on the territory of that State

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/17

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Articles 49 EC to 55 EC preclude national legislation of a Member
State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a
natural person established in that Member State who hires a vehicle
registered in another Member State to pay the full amount of registra-
tion tax on commencement of use of the highway in the first Member
State by that vehicle, irrespective of the duration of the use of that
highway, and denying the person in question any right to an exemp-
tion or a refund when it is neither intended that the vehicle essentially
be used in the first Member State on a permanent basis nor is the
vehicle in fact used in that manner.

(1) OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 June 2006 —
Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmoni-
sation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-324/05 P) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion —
Application for mixed word and figurative mark containing
the verbal element ‘Turkish Power’ — Opposition by the
holder of the earlier word mark POWER — Rejection of the
opposition — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly
unfounded)

(2006/C 224/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH (represented by:
B. Piepenbrink, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G.
Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 22 June 2005 in Case T-34/04
Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v OHIM by which the Court
of First Instance rejected the application for annulment of the
decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM rejecting the
appeal brought by the appellant, proprietor of the trade mark
the Opposition Division
‘POWER’, against
rejecting the opposition filed against the application for regis-
tration of the figurative mark ‘TURKISH POWER’ — Likelihood
of confusion between trade marks

the decision of

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
départemental des pensions militaires du Morbihan –
France) — Ameur Echouikh v Secrétaire d'État aux
Anciens Combattants

(Case C-336/05) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure
— Euro-Mediterranean Agreement EC-Morocco — Article 65
— Principle of non-discrimination in matters of social
security — Armed services invalidity pension)

(2006/C 224/31)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal départemental des pensions militaires du Morbihan

Parties

Applicant: Ameur Echouikh

Defendant: Secrétaire d'État aux anciens combattants

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal départemental
des pensions militaires du Morbihan — Interpretation of Arti-
cles 64 and 65 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement estab-
lishing an association between the European Communities and
their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of
Morocco, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 26 February
1996 (OJ 2000 L 70, p. 2), of Articles 40 to 42 of the Coop-
eration Agreement between the European Economic Com-
munity and the Kingdom of Morocco, signed in Rabat on 27
April 1976 (OJ 1978 L 264, p. 1) and of the general principle
of non-discrimination based on nationality as enshrined in
Article 12 of the EC Treaty and Article 14 of the ECHR —
Direct effect — Meaning of ‘worker’, ‘remuneration’ and ‘social
security benefit’ — National
legislation refusing an armed
services invalidity pension to a Moroccan national who has
served in the Member State's armed forces