Case C-232/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2007 — Derby SA v Belgian State
Date: 2007-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, animal show, equidae, game of chance, interpretation of the law, provision of services, sporting event, tax exemption

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/11

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jörn Petersen

Defendant: Arbeitsmarktservice Niederösterreich

Questions referred

1. Is

benefit

granted

a monetary

unemployment

to
unemployed persons who have applied for the grant of a
benefit under the statutory pension and accident insurance
scheme on the ground of reduced capacity to work or inca-
pacity to work until a decision is made on their application
which is an advance payment of such benefit and is to be
such benefit, and which,
subsequently set off against
although subject to the conditions that the person is unem-
ployed and has completed a minimum eligibility period, is
not subject to the other requirements for the payment of
unemployment
to work,
willingness to work and readiness to work, and which is paid
only if, having regard to the circumstances, it is likely that
benefits will be granted under the statutory pension and acci-
dent insurance scheme, an unemployment benefit within the
meaning
(EEC)
4(1)(g)
No 1408/71 (1) of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the
application of social security schemes to employed persons
and their families moving within the Community, or an inva-
lidity benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of that
Regulation?

of Article

Regulation

capacity

benefit,

namely

of

2. If the answer to the first question is to the effect that the
benefit referred to is an unemployment benefit within the
meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71:
Does Article 39 EC preclude a national provision which
provides that — apart from a discretion available on applica-
tion by the unemployed person in cases of exceptional
circumstances for up to three months — the claim to the
benefit is suspended if the unemployed person lives abroad
(in another Member State)?

(1) OJ L 149, p. 2.

Applicant: Tiercé Ladbroke SA

Defendant: Belgian State

Question referred

sporting events, exempt

Is the supply of the following services by an agent, acting on
behalf of a principal who operates a business of taking bets on
horse-races and other
from VAT
pursuant to Article 13(B)(d)(3) (1) of the Sixth Directive, which
exempts transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit
accounts, …, payments …: namely, taking of the bets in the
name of the principal; recording the bets; confirming to the
customer, by the issue of a betting slip, that the bet has been
made; collecting the monies; paying out the winnings; assuming
sole responsibility, vis-à-vis the principal, for management of
the collected monies and for any thefts or losses of money; and
receiving remuneration for those activities in the form of a
commission from the principal?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation 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).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2007 — Derby
SA v Belgian State

(Case C-232/07)

(2007/C 170/20)

Language of the case: French

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2007 — Tiercé
Ladbroke SA v Belgian State

(Case C-231/07)

(2007/C 170/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Derby SA

Cour d'appel de Bruxelles

Defendant: Belgian State

C 170/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2007

Question referred

sporting events, exempt

Is the supply of the following services by an agent, acting on
behalf of a principal who operates a business of taking bets on
horse-races and other
from VAT
pursuant to Article 13(B)(d)(3) (1) of the Sixth Directive, which
exempts transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit
accounts, …, payments …: namely, taking of the bets in the
name of the principal; recording the bets; confirming to the
customer, by the issue of a betting slip, that the bet has been
made; collecting the monies; paying out the winnings; assuming
sole responsibility, vis-à-vis the principal, for management of
the collected monies and for any thefts or losses of money; and
receiving remuneration for those activities in the form of a
commission from the principal?

— and by suffering the discharge of urban waste water
from the agglomeration of the Estoril coast to produce
adverse effects on the environment,

the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Decision 2001/720/EC;

its obligations

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 1999 Portugal made a request to the Commission for the
discharge of waste water into the Atlantic Ocean near the
estuary of
the
Estoril coast, to be subject to less stringent treatment.

from the agglomeration of

the River Tagus,

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation 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).

The Commission established that the requirements laid down in
the provision derogating from Directive 91/271/EEC (2) had
been satisfied and granted Portugal's request by means of Deci-
sion 2001/720/EC.

Action brought on 11 May 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-233/07)

(2007/C 170/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and P. Andrade, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that

— by failing to subject, during the bathing season,

the
urban waste water from the agglomeration of the Estoril
coast to at least advanced primary treatment and to a
disinfection system as provided for by Article 2 of Deci-
sion 2001/720/EC (1),

— by failing to subject, outside the bathing season, the
urban waste water from the agglomeration of the Estoril
coast, prior to discharge, to at least primary treatments,
as provided for by Article 3 of Decision 2001/720/EC,

From the replies given by the Portuguese authorities to the
formal notice and reasoned opinion it is apparent that the
Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
abovementioned articles of Decision 20001/720/EC.

(1) Commission Decision of 8 October 2001 granting Portugal a dero-
gation regarding urban waste water treatment for the agglomeration
of the Estoril coast (OJ 2001 L 269, p. 14).

(2) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban

waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Konstitucinis
Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 May 2007 — Sabatauskas
and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas

(Case C-239/07)

(2007/C 170/22)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas (Lithuania)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Group of members of
Sabatauskas and Others

the Seimas — Julius

Interested party: Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas