Case C-272/07: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Failure to implement within the prescribed time-limit)
Date: 2008-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, award of contract, national implementing measure, public contract, services contract, supplies contract, works contract

C 209/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

It is for the national court to determine:

Re:

— whether the drawing up of the national list of species of mammals
which may be held and subsequent amendments to that list are
based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria;

— whether a procedure enabling interested parties to have species of
mammals included in that list is provided for, readily accessible
and can be completed within a reasonable time, and whether,
where there is a refusal to include a species, it being obligatory to
state the reasons for that refusal, that refusal decision is open to
challenge before the courts;

— whether applications

to obtain the inclusion of a species of
mammal in that list or to obtain individual derogations to hold
specimens of species not included in that list may be refused by the
competent administrative authorities only if the holding of speci-
mens of the species concerned poses a genuine risk to the protection
of the abovementioned interests and requirements; and

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Incorrect
transposition [of Articles 8, 12 and 13] of Directive
2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to
electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal
Service Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Obligation to use
an efficient, objective,
transparent and non-discriminatory
mechanism to designate undertakings entrusted with the provi-
sion of universal service — National
legislation immediately
excluding economic operators which are not capable of ensuring
the provision of that service throughout the national territory

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

— whether conditions for

list,

in that

such as

referred to

the holding of specimens of mammals
not
in
Article 3bis(2)(3)(b) and (6) of the Law of 14 August 1986
concerning the protection and welfare of animals, as amended by
the Law of 4 May 1995, are objectively justified and do not go
beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by the
national legislation as a whole.

those

out

set

1. Declares that, by transposing into national law in the way it did
the undertakings
concerning the designation of
the provisions
capable of guaranteeing the provision of universal service,
the
French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8(2),
12 and 13 and Annex IV of Directive 2002/22/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal
communications
service and users'
networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’).

relating to electronic

rights

(1) OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

2. Orders the French Republic to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 211 of 8.9.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 June 2008
— Commission of the European Communities v French
Republic

(Case C-220/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive
2002/22/EC — Electronic communications — Designation of
the undertakings entrusted with the provision of universal
service — Incorrect transposition)

(2008/C 209/16)

Language of the case: French

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 June 2008
— Commission of the European Communities v Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-272/07) (1)

(Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Coordination
of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public
supply contracts and public service contracts — Failure to
implement within the prescribed time-limit)

(2008/C 209/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J.-P. Keppenne and M. Shotter, Agents)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Stromsky and D. Kukovec, Agents,)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and
B. Messmer, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C.
Schiltz, Agent)

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/13

Re:

Parties

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take,
within the prescribed time-limit,
the measures necessary to
comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of
procedures for the award of public works contracts, public
supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134,
p. 114)

Applicant: The Test Claimants in the CFC and Dividend Group
Litigation

Defendant: Commissioners of Inland Revenue

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, in failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit,
all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of
procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply
contracts and public
the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

contracts,

service

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Chancery Divi-
sion of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales
(United Kingdom)) — The Test Claimants in the CFC and
Inland
Dividend Group Litigation v Commissioners of

Revenue

(Case C-201/05) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Proce-
dure — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital
— Direct taxation — Corporation tax — Share dividends
paid to a resident company by a non-resident company —
Rules on controlled foreign companies (‘CFCs’) — Situation
as regards a non-member country — Classification of claims
brought against the tax authority — Liability of a Member
State for breach of Community law)

(2008/C 209/18)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and
Wales

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice
(Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Articles 43, 49
and 56 EC — National tax legislation — Corporation tax —
Exemption — Dividends paid by other companies to a company
established in national territory — Situation differing according
to the State where the other companies are established

Operative part of the order

legislation of a Member State which exempts

1. Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not
from
preclude
corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from
another resident company, when that State imposes corporation tax
on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident
company has a shareholding
company in which the resident
enabling it to exercise a definite influence over the decisions of that
non-resident company and to determine its activities, while at the
same time granting a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the
company making the distribution in the Member State in which it
is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreign-sourced
dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nationally-
sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the
amount paid in the Member State of the company making the
distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged in
the Member State of the company receiving the distribution.

legislation of a Member State which exempts

Article 56 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not
preclude
from
corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from
another resident company, when that State imposes corporation tax
on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident
company in which the resident company holds at least 10 % of the
voting rights, while granting a tax credit for the tax actually paid
by the company making the distribution in the Member State in
which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreign-
sourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to
nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal
to the amount paid in the Member State of the company making
the distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged
in the Member State of the company receiving the distribution.

legislation of a Member State which exempts

Article 56 EC is, furthermore, to be interpreted as meaning that it
precludes
from
corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from
another resident company, where that State levies corporation tax
on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident
company in which it holds less than 10 % of the voting rights,
without granting the company receiving the dividends a tax credit
for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution
in the State in which the latter is resident.