CELEX: C1997/252/21
Language: en
Date: 1997-08-16 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 1997 in Case C-330/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre): Goldsmiths (Jewellers) Ltd v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (VAT - Sixth Directive - Right to derogate provided for in Article 11 C (1) - No refund for barter transactions in the case of non-payment)

16 . 8 . 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 252/ 11
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the
                                                                           Convention of 27 September 1968 also have exclusive
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                          jurisdiction where the action seeks in particular a
                         of 3 July 1997                                    declaration that the contract containing that clause is
                                                                           void.
in Case C-269/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Miinchen): Francesco Benincasa v.
                         Dentalkit Sri (')                            (') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
(Brussels    Convention — Concept of consumer —
               Agreement conferring jurisdiction)
                          ( 97/C 252/20 )
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                              ( Sixth Chamber)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will he
           published in the European Court Reports)                                              of 3 July 1997
                                                                      in Case C-330/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal
In Case C-269/95 : reference to the Court by the Oberlan­
desgericht Miinchen ( Germany ) under the Protocol of                 Centre ): Goldsmiths (Jewellers ) Ltd v. Commissioners of
3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice                                 Customs and Excise ( 1 )
of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction
and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial              ( VAT — Sixth Directive — Right to derogate provided for
                                                                      in Article 11 C (1 ) — No refund for barter transactions in
matters, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                                         the case of non-payment)
pending before that court between Francesco Benincasa
and Dentalkit Sri on the interpretation of the first
                                                                                                 ( 97/C 252/21 )
paragraph of Article 13 , the first paragraph of Article 14
and the first paragraph of Article 17 of the
aforementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 ( OJ No
 L 299, 31 . 12 . 1972 , p. 32 ), as amended by the
 Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the                                 (Language of the case: English)
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
 Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304 , 30 . 10 .
 1978 , p. 1 ; amended version of the Convention at p. 77 )
— the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.
                                                                      In Case C-330/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N.
 Kakouris ( Rapporteur), P. J. G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm,              of the EC Treaty by the Value Added Tax Tribunal ,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General ; L.                 Manchester Tribunal Centre (United Kingdom ), for a
 Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
 judgment on 3 July 1997, in which it has ruled :                     that court between Goldsmiths (Jewellers ) Ltd and
                                                                      Commissioners of Customs and Excise — the Court ( Sixth
                                                                      Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini , President of the
                                                                      Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn,
 1 . The first paragraph of Article 13 and the first                  G. Hirsch and R. Schintgen, Judges; M. A. La Pergola,
     paragraph of Article 14 of the Convention of                     Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
     27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July 1997, in which
     enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial                 it has ruled :
     matters, as amended by the Corwention of 9 October
     1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,
     Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
     Northern Ireland, must be interpreted as meaning that
     a plaintiff who has concluded a contract with a view              On a proper construction, the derogation provided for in
     to pursuing a trade or profession, not at the present             the second subparagraph of Article 11 C (1 ) of the Sixth
     time but in the future, may not be regarded as a                  Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
     consumer.
                                                                      harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                       to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
                                                                       uniform basis of assessment — does not authorize a
                                                                       Member State which enacts provisions for the refund of
 2 . The courts of a Contracting State which have been                 VAT in the case of total or partial non-payment of the
     designated in a jurisdiction clause validly concluded             consideration to refuse that refund where the unpaid
 ---pagebreak--- No C 252/12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 8 . 97
consideration is in kind, when it permits a refund where              2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
the consideration is expressed in money.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
H OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             of 9 July 1997
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                              in Joined Cases C-34/95 , C-35/95 and C-36/95
                                                                      (references for a preliminary ruling from the
                          of 3 July 1997                              Marknadsdomstol ): Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v.
                                                                      De Agostini ( Svenska) Förlag AB and Konsumentombuds­
in     Case   C-60/96: Commission of the European                                mannen (KO ) v. TY-Shop i Sverige AB (')
              Communities v. French Republic (^
                                                                      ('Television without frontiers ' Directive — Television
 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — VAT           advertising broadcast from a Member State — Prohibition
— Sixth Directive — Exemptions — Letting of tents,                    of misleading advertising — Prohibition of advertising
                   caravans or mobile homes)                                                 directed at children)
                          ( 97/C 252/22 )                                                        ( 97/C 252/23 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                        (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                  published in the European Court Reports)
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Joined Cases C-34/95 , C-35/95 and C-36/95 : references
                                                                      to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
 In Case C-60/96 : Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents : Helene Michard and Enrico
                                                                      Marknadsdomstol ( Sweden ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      proceedings pending before that court between Konsumen­
Traversa ) v. French Republic ( Agents: Catherine de Salins
 and Gautier Mignot) — Application for a declaration that,
                                                                      tombudsmannen ( KO ) and De Agostini ( Svenska ) Förlag
                                                                      AB ( C-34/95 ), and between Konsumentombudsmannen
 by introducing and maintaining in force an administrative
                                                                       ( KO ) and TV-Shop i Sverige AB ( C-35/95 and C-36/95 ) —
 provision extending to the letting of certain forms of
                                                                      on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 59 of the EC
 movable property the exemption from VAT which,
                                                                      Treaty and of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October
 pursuant to Article 13 B ( b ) of the Sixth Council Directive
                                                                       1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down
 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
                                                                       by law, regulation or administrative action in Member
 laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
                                                                       States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
 Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
                                                                       activities ( OJ No L 298 , 17. 10 . 1989, p. 23 ) — the
 assessment, is restricted exclusively to the letting of
                                                                       Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
 immovable property, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                       G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray
 fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive —
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.
 the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
                                                                       Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
 President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris,
                                                                       Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H.
 P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and R. Schintgen, Judges;             Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; H. A.
 G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                       Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
 Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July
                                                                       a judgment on 9 July 1997, in which it has ruled:
  1997, in which it:
                                                                        1 . Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on
  1 . declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force                the coordination of certain provisions laid down by
      an administrative provision extending to the letting of               law, regulation or administrative action in Member
      certain forms of movable property the exemption from                  States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
      VAT which, pursuant to Article 13 B (b) of the Sixth                  activities does not preclude a Member State from
      Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                    taking, pursuant to general legislation on protection of
      harmonization of the laws of the Member States                        consumers against misleading advertising, measures
      relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                   against an advertiser in relation to television
      added tax: uniform basis of assessment, is restricted                 advertising broadcast from another Member State,
      exclusively to the letting of immovable property, the                 provided that those measures do not prevent the
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                  retransmission, as such, in its territory of television
      under Article 2 of that Directive;                                    broadcasts coming from that other Member State.