Case C-89/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords — United Kingdom) — United Utilities plc v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(f) — Exemption for games of chance — Scope — Activity of a call centre)
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, game of chance, interpretation of the law, provision of services, tax exemption, tax harmonisation

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/11

— by creating in national legislation some doubt as to who is
responsible for paying the remuneration owed to perfomers on
assignment of the rental right, the Portuguese Republic has
failed to comply with Article 4 of Directive 92/100, as
amended by Directive 2001/29/EC,
in conjunction with
Article 2(5) and (7) thereof;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approxi-
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval
of motor vehicles and their trailers, as amended by Council Directive
92/53/EEC of 18 June 1992, is to be interpreted as meaning that it
does not preclude national rules which provide that a vehicle such as
the one in question in the main proceedings is not subject to the
national speed limits for passenger cars, even where that vehicle has
been registered as a passenger car on the basis of a Community type-
approval granted pursuant to that directive.

(1) OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht
Freiburg — Germany) — Bernd Voigt

(Case C-83/05) (1)

(Completion of the internal market — Approximation of
laws — Motor vehicles — Community type-approval proce-
dure — Directive 70/156/EEC — Scope — Classification
according to the technical characteristics of vehicle types —
Effect on vehicle classification of a national regulation
governing road traffic)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of
Lords — United Kingdom) — United Utilities plc v
Commissioners of Customs & Excise

(Case C-89/05) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(f) — Exemption for
games of chance — Scope — Activity of a call centre)

(2006/C 224/19)

Language of the case: German

(2006/C 224/20)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Amtsgericht Freiburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bernd Voigt

Re:

Referring court

House of Lords

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: United Utilities plc

Defendant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Freiburg —
Interpretation of Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February
1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers
(OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 96), as amended by
Council Directive 92/53/EEC of 18 June 1992 (OJ 1992 L 225
p. 1) — Registration by a Member State of a category M1
vehicle (passenger car) covered by Community type-approval
— Whether the national authorities may penalise the driver of
such a vehicle for road traffic offences which relate to goods
vehicles — Motorway speed limits applicable solely to goods
vehicles

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Inter-
pretation of Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth
Council Directive 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 of betting, lotteries
and other forms of gambling — Applicability to supplies of
services by a third company which accepts bets made by tele-
phone on behalf of another company

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