Joined Cases C-231/07 and C-232/07: Order of the Court of 14 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Tiercé Ladbroke SA (C-231/07) and Derby SA (C-232/07) v Belgian State (Rules of Procedure — First subparagraph of Article 104(3) — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13(B)(d)(3) — Exemptions — Concepts of deposit accounts and of payments — Refusal of exemption)
Date: 2008-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, animal show, equidae, game of chance, interpretation of the law, provision of services, sporting event, tax exemption

C 183/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 June 2008 —
the European Communities v French
Commission of

Request for an opinion submitted by the Commission of
the European Communities pursuant to Article 300(6) EC

Republic

(Case C-507/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation
(EC) No 6/2002 — Industrial and commercial property —
Community designs — Article 80(2) — Failure to communi-
cate the list of courts)

(Opinion 1/08)

(2008/C 183/10)

Language of the case: all the official languages

(2008/C 183/09)

Applicant:

Language of the case: French

Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E.
White, M. Huttunen and L. Prete, Agents)

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Krämer, Agent)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and
A. Hare, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community
designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) — Failure to communicate the list,
provided for in Article 80(2) of the regulation referred to above,
of Community design courts, indicating their names and their
territorial jurisdiction.

Operative part of the judgment

1. By not

communicating to the Commission of

the European
Communities the list of Community design courts,
the French
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80(2) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on
Community designs;

2. The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.

Questions submitted to the Court:

1. Does the conclusion of the agreements with the affected
WTO [World Trade Organisation] members, pursuant
to
Article XXI of the GATS [General Agreement on Trade in
Services], as described in this request for an Opinion, fall
within the sphere of exclusive competence of
the Com-
munity or within the sphere of shared competence of the
Community and the Member States?

2. Do Article 133(1) and (5), in conjunction with Article 300(2)
of the EC Treaty, constitute the appropriate legal basis for
the act concluding, on behalf of the European Community,
or of the Community and its Member States, the aforemen-
tioned agreements?

Order of the Court of 14 May 2008 (reference for a preli-
minary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles
(Belgium)) — Tiercé Ladbroke SA (C-231/07) and Derby
SA (C-232/07) v Belgian State

(Joined Cases C-231/07 and C-232/07) (1)

(Rules of Procedure — First subparagraph of Article 104(3)
— Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13(B)(d)(3) — Exemptions
— Concepts of ‘deposit accounts’ and of ‘payments’ —
Refusal of exemption)

(2008/C 183/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/7

Parties

Defendant: French Republic

Applicants: Tiercé Ladbroke SA and Derby SA

Defendant: Belgian State

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Bruxelles
(Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 13(B)(d)(3) of Sixth
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) — Exemption in relation to
transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts
and payments — Bets, lotteries and other games of chance or
forms of gambling — Supply of services by buralistes respon-
sible for collecting the bets on behalf of a principal and, where
appropriate, for paying out winnings to bettors — Whether
eligible for the exemption provided for in Article 13(B)(d)(3)

By order of 16 May 2008, the Court (Fifth Chamber) declared
that it clearly had no jurisdiction to decide the action and
ordered the applicant to bear his own costs.

Action brought on 7 February 2008 — Sandra Raulin v
French Republic

(Case C-49/08)

(2008/C 183/13)

Language of the case: French

Operative part of the order

Parties

‘transactions,

including negotiation,

The terms
concerning deposit
accounts and payments’ used in Article 13(B)(d)(3) 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 are to be inter-
preted as meaning that they do not refer to the supply of services by an
agent acting on behalf of a client which carries out the activity of
accepting bets on horse races and other sporting events, consisting of
acceptance by the agent of bets on behalf of the client, registration
thereof, confirmation to the client, by presentation of the betting slip,
that a bet was made, collection of funds, payment of winnings, sole
assumption of
liability as regards the client for management of the
funds collected and for thefts and/or losses of money and receipt of
remuneration in the form of commission from the client as remunera-
tion for that activity.

(1) OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

Action brought on 10 August 2007 — Hervé Raulin v
French Republic

Applicant: Sandra Raulin (represented by: C. Vaucois, avocat)

Defendant: French Republic

By order of 16 May 2008 the Court (Fifth Chamber) declared
that it clearly had no jurisdiction to give a ruling on the action
and ordered Mrs Raulin to pay her own costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi
Bíroság (Hungarian Republic) lodged on 2 April 2008 —
LIDL Magyarorság Kereskedelmi Bt. v Nemzeti Hírközlési
Hatóság Tanácsa

(Case C-132/08)

(2008/C 183/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

(Case C-454/07)

(2008/C 183/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíroság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties

Applicant: LIDL Magyarorság Kereskedelmi Bt.

Applicant: Hervé Raulin (represented by: C. Vaucois, avocat)

Defendant: Nemzeti Hírközlési Hatóság Tanácsa