Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 304/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.12.2003

to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended
by Council Directive 1999/49/EC of 25 May 1999 amending,
with regard to the level of the standard rate, Directive 77/388
(OJ 1999 L 139, p. 27), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: D.A.O. Edward, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
A. La Pergola and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 23 October 2003, in which it:

1. _Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to_
_services provided directly to the public by musical ensembles or_
_for a concert organiser and to services provided directly to the_
_public by soloists, but applying the standard rate of that tax to_
_the services of soloists working for an organiser, the Federal_
_Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under_
_the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) of the 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 assess-_
_ment, as amended by Council Directive 1999/49/EC of_
_25 May 1999 amending, with regard to the level of the_
_standard rate, Directive 77/388;_

2. _Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Sixth Chamber)**

**of 23 October 2003**

**in Case C-115/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the Cour de cassation): Administration des douanes et**
**droits indirects v Rioglass SA, Transremar SL** ( [1] )

_**(Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent**_
_**effect — Procedures for detention under customs control —**_
_**Goods in transit intended for the market of a non-member**_
_**country — Spare parts for motor cars)**_

(2003/C 304/11)

_(Language of the case: French)_

_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
_in the European Court Reports)_

In Case C-115/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

Administration des douanes et droits indirects and Rioglass SA,
Transremar SL on the interpretation of Article 28 EC, the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris (Rapporteur),
F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in
which it has ruled:

_Article 28 EC is to be interpreted as precluding the implementation,_
_pursuant to a legislative measure of a Member State concerning_
_intellectual property, of procedures for detention by the customs_
_authorities of goods lawfully manufactured in another Member State_
_and intended, following their transit through the territory of the first_
_Member State, to be placed on the market in a non-member country._

( [1] ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Sixth Chamber)**

**of 23 October 2003**

**in Case C-154/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the Hässleholms tingsrätt): Jan Nilsson** ( [1] )

_**(International trade in endangered species of wild fauna**_
_**and flora — CITES — Regulation (EC) No 338/97 —**_
_**Articles 2(w) and 8(3) — Notion of ‘worked specimen’ —**_
_**Stuffed animal — Concept of ‘specimen acquired more than**_
_**50 years previously’ — Manner of acquisition — Exemption**_
_**— Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 — Articles 29 and 32)**_

(2003/C 304/12)

_(Language of the case: Swedish)_

_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
_in the European Court Reports)_

In Case C-154/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by Hässleholms tingsrätt (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling
in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against
Jan Nilsson, on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC)
No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species
of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ 1997
L 61, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)

13.12.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/9

No 2307/97 of 18 November 1997 (OJ 1997 L 325,
p. 1), and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of
30 August 2001 laying down detailed rules concerning the
implementation of Regulation No 338/97 (OJ 2001 L 250,
p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric
(Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 23 October 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. _Articles 2(w) and 8(3)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/_
_97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild_
_fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, as amended by_
_Commission Regulation (EC) No 2307/97 of 18 November_
_1997 are to be interpreted as meaning that the animals referred_
_to in Annex A to that regulation but which have been stuffed_
_fall within the definition of ‘worked specimens’ for the purposes_
_of those provisions._

2. _Article 8(3)(b) of Regulation No 338/97, as amended by_
_Regulation No 2307/97, is to be interpreted as meaning that_
_receiving specimens as a gift or inheriting them, and killing_
_animals and then taking them into one’s possession, makes_
_them ‘acquired’ within the meaning of that provision. It is not_
_necessary that the person who acquired the specimen more than_
_50 years previously be the present owner._

3. _Notwithstanding the provision in the second paragraph of_
_Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of_
_30 August 2001 laying down detailed rules concerning the_
_implementation of Regulation No 338/97, Article 8(3)(b) of_
_the latter regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the_
_management authority of the Member State concerned must_
_have been able to ascertain that the specimen in question was_
_acquired in accordance with the conditions laid down in_
_Article 2(w) of Regulation No 338/97, as amended by_
_Regulation No 2307/97._

( [1] ) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-**
**icht Sigmaringen by order of that Court of 31 July**
**2003 in the administrative law case of Gaye Gürol**
**against Landesamt für Ausbildungsförderung Nordrhein-**
**Westfalen**

**(Case C-374/03)**

(2003/C 304/13)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Sigmaringen (Administrative Court, Sigmaringen) of 31 July
2003, received at the Court Registry on 8 September 2003,

for a preliminary ruling in the administrative law case of
Gaye Gürol against Landesamt für Ausbildungsförderung
Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:

1. Does the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80
of the EEC/Turkey Association Council have direct effect
in the domestic legal systems of Member States of the
European Community, so that Turkish children residing
legally in a Member State of the Community with their
parents who are or have been legally employed in that
Member State, and who have the same qualifications as
the children of nationals of that Member State, are entitled
to equal access to general education, apprenticeship and
vocational training?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Do Turkish children still qualify as ‘residing legally with
their parents’ if they establish and maintain their own
principal residence at the place of their university education and are registered with only a subsidiary residence
at their parents’ address?

3. If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:

Does the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80
of the EEC/Turkey Association Council confer on the
beneficiaries of that provision entitlement not only to
equal access to educational facilities but also to equal
access to State benefits granted by the Member State with
the aim of facilitating participation in education or
training, or is Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/
Turkey Association Council to be interpreted as reserving
to Member States the possibility of making the grant of
social benefits in the area of education subject to other
conditions or of limiting those benefits?

4. If Questions 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative:

Does that also apply to a university education in the
Turkish homeland for the beneficiaries?

**Action brought on 25 September 2003 by the Italian**
**Republic against the Commission of the European Com-**
**munities**

**(Case C-401/03)**

(2003/C 304/14)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 25 September 2003 by the Italian Republic
represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent and
Antonio Cingolo, Avvocato dello Stato.