Case C-456/07: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Karol Mihal v Daňový úrad Košice V (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable persons — Article 4(5), first subparagraph — Bodies governed by public law — Bailiffs — Natural and legal persons)
Date: 2008-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, bailiff, interpretation of the law, legal person, provision of services, public law, tax harmonisation

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/17

Re:

Intervener: Azienda Sanitaria locale ULSS No 15 (Alta Padovana,
Regione Veneto, Italy)

(Trade Marks and Designs)

Appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber) of 16 May 2007 in Case T-491/04 Merant v
OHIM, by which the Court annulled decision R 542/2002-2 of
the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the internal Market
(OHIM) of
18 October 2004 upholding an action against the opposition
decision which partially rejected the application for registration
of Community word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods and services in
classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33,
34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 in opposition proceedings
figurative mark
brought by the proprietor of
‘MICRO FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 41
and 42 — Likelihood of confusion between two marks

the national

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato (Italy)) — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak
SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs,
Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia
SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA

(Case C-386/07) (1)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Inter-
pretation of Articles 10 and 81(1) EC and Directive 98/5/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February
1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of
lawyer on a
permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the
qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) — Fixing by a
national professional organisation of mandatory tariffs
for
lawyers' services subject
to ministerial approval — National
rules prohibiting judges in decisions on costs from derogating
from the set minimum fees

Operative part of the order

1. Articles 10 EC and 81 EC do not preclude a national law which
in principle prohibits derogation from minimum fees approved by
ministerial decree, on the basis of a draft drawn up by a profes-
sional body of members of the Bar such as the Consiglia nazionale
forense, and which also prohibits the judge, when he decides the
amount of costs that the unsuccessful party must pay to the other
party, from derogating from those minimum fees.

2. The third question referred by the Consiglio di Stato by decision of

13 January 2006 is clearly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

(Rules of procedure — Articles 92(1) and 104(3) — Com-
munity competition rules — National
concerning
lawyers' fees — Setting of professional scales of charges —
Partial inadmissibility — Answers to questions which may be
deduced from the case-law of the Court)

rules

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd
Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Karol Mihal v
Daňový úrad Košice V

(2008/C 209/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties

(Case C-456/07) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure
— Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable persons — Article 4(5),
first subparagraph — Bodies governed by public law —
Bailiffs — Natural and legal persons)

(2008/C 209/24)

Language of the case: Slovak

Applicants: Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecno-
logie Sanitarie SpA

Referring court

Defendants: Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical
Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica
Divisione Servizi SpA

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

(1) OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.

C 209/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

Parties

Applicant: Karol Mihal

Defendant: Daňový úrad Košice V

Re:

the

first

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Najvyšší súd Slovenskej
republiky — Interpretation of
subparagraph of
Article 4(5) 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 assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)
— Treatment of a body governed by public law as a non-
taxable person in respect of activities or operations engaged in
as a public authority — Inclusion of bailiffs in the exercise of
their public duties — Direct effect

Operative part of the order

An activity exercised by a private individual, such as that of a bailiff, is
not exempted from value added tax merely because it consists in enga-
ging in acts falling within the rights and powers of a public authority.
Even on the assumption that, in the exercise of his duties, a bailiff does
carry out such acts, he does not, under legislation such as that at issue
in the main proceedings, exercise his activity in the form of a body
governed by public law, not being integrated into the organisation of
the public administration, but in the form of an independent economic
activity carried out in a self-employed capacity, and, consequently, he is
not covered by the exemption provided for in the first subparagraph of
Article (5) 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.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M. Ilhan

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Neder-
landen Den Haag — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC to 55 EC
— National rules providing for imposition of a registration tax
on first use of a vehicle on the national road network irrespec-
tive of the duration of use of that network — Liability to tax of
a person established in that Member State who has leased a
vehicle which is registered in another Member State and which
is intended for use essentially in the first Member State for
professional and private purposes for a period of three years

Operative part of the order

Articles 49 EC to 55 EC preclude the application of national rules,
such as those at issue in the main proceedings, by virtue of which a
person, residing or established in a Member State, who uses —
primarily in that Member State — a motor vehicle registered and
leased in another Member State, must, on first use of that vehicle on
the road network of the first Member State, pay a tax which is calcu-
lated without taking into account the duration of the leasing agreement
for that vehicle or the length of time that vehicle will be used on that
road network.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 May 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden Den Haag (Netherlands)) — M. Ilhan v
Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Appeal brought on 3 April 2008 by Japan Tobacco, Inc.
against the judgment delivered on 30 January 2008 by the
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-128/06,
Japan Tobacco, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the
(OHIM) —
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-42/08) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Proce-
dure — Freedom to provide services — Articles 49 EC to 55 EC
— Motor vehicles — Use in one Member State of a motor
vehicle registered and leased in another Member State —
Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State)

(2008/C 209/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Torrefacção Camelo

(Case C-136/08 P)

(2008/C 209/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag

Appellant: Japan Tobacco, Inc. (represented by: A. Ortiz López,
abogada, S. Ferrandis González, abogado and E. Ochoa Santa-
maría, abogada)