Case C-390/05: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — substances that deplete the ozone layer)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, stratospheric pollutant, waste recycling

C 331/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof, Germany) — A. Brünsteiner GmbH (C-376/05),
Autohaus Hilgert GmbH (C-377/05) v Bayerische Motoren-
werke AG (BMW)

(Joined Cases C-376/05 and C-377/05) (1)

(Competition — Distribution agreement relating to motor
vehicles — Block exemption — Regulation (EC) No 1475/95
— Article 5(3) — Termination by the supplier — Reorganisa-
tion of the network — Entry into force of Regulation (EC) No
1400/2002 — Article 4(1) — Hardcore restrictions — Conse-
quences)

meaning of that provision. It is for the national courts or arbitra-
tors to determine, in the light of all the evidence in the case before
them, whether that is the position.

2) On a proper

construction of Article 4 of Regulation No
1400/2002, once the transitional period provided for by Article
10 of that regulation has expired, the block exemption under that
regulation did not apply to contracts satisfying the conditions for
block exemption under Regulation No 1475/95 which had as
their object at least one of the hardcore restrictions listed in Article
4, with the result that all the contractual terms restrictive of compe-
tition contained in such contracts were liable to be caught by the
prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC, if the conditions for
exemption under Article 81(3) EC were not satisfied.

(2006/C 331/26)

Language of the case: German

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A. Brünsteiner GmbH, Autohaus Hilgert GmbH

Defendant: Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof —
Interpretation of the first indent of Article 5(3) of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the applica-
tion of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor
vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (OJ 1995 L 145 p.
25) and of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3)
of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted
practices in the motor vehicle sector (OJ 2002 L 203, p. 30) —
Termination of a distribution agreement by the supplier, due to
the need to re-organise the whole of the network because of a
change in Community legislation

Operative part of the judgment

1) The entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 2002 of
31 July 2002 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty
to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the
motor vehicle sector did not, of itself, require the reorganisation of
the distribution network of a supplier within the meaning of the
first indent of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article [81](3)
of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and
servicing agreements. However, that entry into force may,
in the
light of the particular nature of the distribution network of each
supplier, have required changes that were so significant that they
must be regarded as representing a true reorganisation within the

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December
the European Communities v
2006 — Commission of

Hellenic Republic

(Case C-390/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation
(EC) No 2037/2000 — substances that deplete the ozone
layer)

(2006/C 331/27)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: U. Wölker and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Defendant(s): Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou,
Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringe-
ment of Articles 16(5) and (6) and 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No
2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ
2000 L 244, p. 1) — Recovery, recycling, reclamation and
destruction of controlled substances — Failure to determine
minimum qualification requirements for the personnel respon-
to the Commission on the
sible — Failure
programmes related to the level of qualification required

to report

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/17

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

for

1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary for deter-
mining minimum qualification requirements
the personnel
charged with the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of
controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer, by failing to
submit to the Commission, by 31 December 2001, a report with
information on the facilities available and the quantities of used
controlled substances recovered, recycled, reclaimed or destroyed and
by failing to take all the preventive measures necessary to ensure
that fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than
3 kg is checked annually for leakages, the Hellenic Republic has
its obligations under Article 16(5) and (6) and
failed to fulfil
Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances
that deplete the ozone layer;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.

Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmoni-
sation 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) — Notion of ‘dental pros-
theses supplied by dentists and dental technicians’ — Supply
effected by a taxable person who has subcontracted the manu-
facture of a dental prosthesis to a dental technician — Right to
deduct VAT in the case of supply in another Member State
which has excluded an exemption

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13A(1)(e) 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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of
10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply
to supplies of dental prostheses effected by an intermediary like the one
in question in the main proceedings who does not have the status of
dentist or dental technician, but has acquired such prostheses from a
dental technician.

(1) OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge
Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — VDP Dental
Laboratory NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-401/05) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13A(1)(e) —
Scope of the exemption — Manufacture and repair of dental
prostheses by an intermediary who does not have the status of
dentist or dental technician — Subcontracting to a dental
technician)

(2006/C 331/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November
the European Communities v
2006 — Commission of

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-452/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Pollution
and nuisance — Urban waste-water treatment)

(2006/C 331/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Parties

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VDP Dental Laboratory NV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and F. Simonetti, Agents, acting
as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S.
Schreiner, Agent)

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Neder-
landen — Interpretation of Articles 13, 17 and 28 of Sixth

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect appli-
cation of Article 5(4) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of
(OJ
21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment
1991 L 135, p. 40)