CELEX: C2004/035/05
Language: en
Date: 2004-02-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-480/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'arbitrage by judgment of that Court of 29 October 2003 in the case brought by H. Clerens against Walloon Region

C 35/4                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          7.2.2004
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’arbitrage                      (a)   in the relevant circumstances, was the Appellant a
by judgment of that Court of 29 October 2003 in the case                              ‘taxable person acting as such’ within Art.2(1) of the
       brought by H. Clerens against Walloon Region                                   Sixth Directive when, in the 26 transactions, it
                                                                                      acquired the CPUs from the UK vendors and sold
                                                                                      them to the non-UK purchasers?
                         (Case C-480/03)
                                                                                (b) in the relevant circumstances, was the Appellant
                          (2004/C 35/05)                                              carrying on an ‘economic activity’ within Art.4 of
                                                                                      the Sixth Directive when, in the 26 transactions, it
                                                                                      acquired the CPUs from the UK vendors and sold
                                                                                      them to the non-UK purchasers?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’arbitrage
                                                                                (c)   in the relevant circumstances, was the acquisition by
of 29 October 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                                      the Appellant, in the 26 transactions, of the CPUs
18 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                                      from the UK vendors a ‘supply of goods’ to the
brought by H. Clerens against Walloon Region on the follow-
                                                                                      Appellant within Art.5(1) of the Sixth Directive?
ing questions:
1.    Must Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April on the                       (d) in the relevant circumstances, was the sale by the
      conservation of wild birds (1) be interpreted as not                            Appellant, in the 26 transactions, of the CPUs to the
      authorising Member States to introduce rules which also                         non-UK purchasers a ‘supply of goods’ by the
      apply to birds mentioned in Annex I to the Directive that                       Appellant within Art.5(1) of the Sixth Directive?
      are born and reared in captivity?
                                                                          2.    Do the answers to Question l(a)-(d) above give rise to any
2.    Must that directive be interpreted as authorising Member                  breach of the general principles of Community law (in
      States to lay down rules to protect birds born and reared                 particular, the principles of proportionality and legal
      in captivity only to the extent that those rules apply solely             certainty)?
      to trade in those birds, or may those rules apply to all the
      operations which trade in birds may entail?
(1) OJ L 103 of 25.04.1979, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 1 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                                  of the European Communities against Ireland
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                                                                                                   (Case C-507/03)
Justice (England & Wales) Chancery Division by order of
that court dated 27 October 2003, in the case of Bond
House Systems Ltd against Commissioners of Customs                                                  (2004/C 35/07)
                            and Excise
                         (Case C-484/03)
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                          (2004/C 35/06)                                  Justice of the European Communities on 1 December 2003 by
                                                                          the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                          by K. Wiedner, acting as agent, assisted by J. E. Flynn QC,
                                                                          Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales) Chancery Division dated 27 October              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 Novem-
ber 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bond House
Systems Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the                1.    declare that, in deciding to entrust the provision of
following questions:                                                            services to An Post without undertaking any prior
                                                                                advertising, Ireland has failed to comply with its obli-
1.    Having regard to the general principles of EC law (in                     gations under the Treaty; and
      particular, the principles of proportionality and legal
      certainty) and to Article 28 of the EC Treaty:                      2.    order Ireland to pay the Commission’s costs.