CELEX: C2004/085/36
Language: en
Date: 2004-04-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-79/04: Action brought on 19 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

3.4.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 85/19
(a)    the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period         2.    Is Article 6(2) applicable when determining which court
       of adjustment as if it had been applied for business                      has jurisdiction to entertain an action on a warranty or
       activities which are presumed to be fully taxed;                          guarantee or third-party proceedings between insurers
                                                                                 and, if so, is such application contingent on there being a
(b) the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period                  connection between the various claims within the mean-
       of adjustment as if it had been applied for business                      ing of Article 22 of the convention or, at the very least,
       activities which are presumed to be fully exempt;                         on evidence that there is sufficient connection between
                                                                                 such claims to demonstrate that there has been no
       or                                                                        avoidance of jurisdiction?
(c)    the capital good is regarded until the expiry of the period
       of adjustment as if it had been applied for business
       activities which are presumed to be partly taxed and
       partly exempt in the proportion of the respective values
       of the taxed sale of the freehold reversion and the exempt
       grant of the 999 year lease?
                                                                           Action brought on 19 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC OF 17 May 1977 on the                                          of Luxembourg
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform
    basis of assessment. OJ L 145, 13.6.1977 p. 1-40.                                                  (Case C-79/04)
                                                                                                      (2004/C 85/36)
                                                                           An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de                          ties on 19 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Cassation, première chambre civile, (France) by order of                   Communities, represented by M. Patakia and B. Schima, acting
that Court of 20 January 2004 in the case of GIE Réunion                   as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
européenne, Axa, Winterthur, Le Continent, Assurances
mutuelles de France against Zurich Seguros, now Zurich
España, and Société Pyrénéenne de Transit d’Automobiles                    The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                           ‘Soptrans’ SA                                   the Court should:
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                          (Case C-77/04)                                         and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                 Commission Directive 2002/40/EC of 8 May 2002
                                                                                 implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard
                          (2004/C 85/35)                                         to energy labelling of household electric ovens (1), or in
                                                                                 any event by failing to forward those provisions to the
                                                                                 Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
                                                                                 to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Cour de Cassation,                    2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
première chambre civile (Court of Cassation, first civil chamb-
er) (France) of 20 January 2004, received at the Court Registry
on 17 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of GIE Réunion européenne,Axa, Winterthur, Le Continent,                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Assurances mutuelles de France against Zurich Seguros, now
Zurich España, and Société Pyrénéenne de Transit d’Automob-
iles ‘Soptrans’ SA on the following questions:
                                                                           The period for transposition of the directive expired on
                                                                           31 December 2002.
1.     Are actions between insurers on a warranty or guarantee
       based on multiple insurance or co-insurance rather than
       on a reinsurance agreement covered by the provisions on             (1) OJ L 128 of 15.5.2002, p. 45.
       matters relating to insurance of Section 3 of Title II of the
       Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, as amended
       by the accession convention of 1978?