CELEX: C1996/133/30
Language: en
Date: 1996-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 5 March 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-60/96)

No C 133/ 14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4 . 5 . 96
2 , if Question 1 is answered in the negative, is a benefit                3 , the standard cable television agreement of 29 May
      granted under the Vergoedingsregeling ( 1 ) to be regarded                1985 and/or agreements deriving therefrom are
      as a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7 ( 2 )              incompatible with Article 7 of the EC Treaty;
      of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ? If so, is the
      imposition of the requirement that the worker                        4 , the participation of BUMA in the cable radio
      concerned should have his residence in the Netherlands                   agreements, in the form adopted , are incompatible
      to be regarded as different treatment by reason of                       with Article 86 of the EC Treaty;
      nationality contrary to Article 7 of that Regulation ?
                                                                           5 , the role played by the Netherlands State in the
0 ) Administrative Décision No 403 of the Stichting                            establishment of the standard cable agreements
    Ontwikkelings- en Saneringsfonds voor de Landbouw                          and their practical implementation by means of
    ( Staatscourant 1988 , 114 ).                                              increases in invoices issued by public utility
                                                                               companies are incompatible with its obligations
                                                                               under Article 90;
                                                                           6 , Articles 2, 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 and 9 of BUMA's standard
                                                                               exploitation agreements are in breach of the
                                                                               Commission's decision of 2 June 1971 in GEMA I
                                                                               ( OJ No L 134 , 1971 , p . 15 ) and are incompatible
Appeal brought on 4 March 1996 by C. Koelman against                           with Article 86 of the EC Treaty, since they
the judgment delivered on 9 January 1996 by the Court of                       constitute an abuse of BUMA's dominant position
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                             in relation to copyright owners and are a restriction
T-575 /93 between C. Koelman and Commission of the                             of competition .
                     European Communities
                        ( Case C-59/96 P)
                                                                      B. annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                           ( 96/C 133/29 )                                 9 January 1996 in Case T-575/93 , and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 January 1996                 1 , declare void on the ground of Articles 173 and 174
                                                                               the   Commission        decision not the   initiate    a
by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-575/93 between C. Koelman and Commission of                          proceeding on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
the European Communities, supported by BUMA, was                               No 17 after submission of a complaint by Koelman
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                            on 26 October 1990 regarding the two 'cable
Communities on 4 March 1996 by C. Koelman, represented                         agreements' of 29 May 1985 and the infringements
                                                                               referred to therein;
by R. V. H. Jonker, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Pels, 12 Rue Léon
Thyes .                                                                    2 , order the Commission to pay compensation for the
                                                                               damage suffered by Koelman;
The appellant claims that the Court should :                               3 , order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                                                                               proceedings .
A.    rule that :
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
      1 , authors should be guaranteed a free choice
          regarding the organization which they wish to               The appellant's grounds of appeal are that the Court of First
          appoint as intermediary in connection with their            Instance wrongly appraised his pleas based on Article 85 ( 3 )
          rights, and undertakings which act as intermediaries        of the EC Treaty and his plea that there had been a
          for rights should be guaranteed fair access to the          manifestly erroneous appraisal and breach of the obligation
          market and should be protected against abuse                to state the reasons upon which the decision was based.
          of dominant positions by musical copyright
          monopolies and similar organizations which, selling
          ' blanket  licences '   on  the  basis   of  dominant
          positions, in conjunction with indemnification
          clauses, infringe the Auteursrecht ( Law on
          copyright) in order thereby to dominate the market
          for intermediaries and exclude competition, which           Action brought on 5 March 1996 by the Commission of the
          results in an unnecessary restriction of the                   European Communities against the French Republic
          free-market economy;                                                                ( Case C-60/96 )
                                                                                                ( 96/C 133/30 )
      2 , the two cable radio and television agreements of
          29 May 1985 and all the agreements deriving
          therefrom are incompatible with Article 85 ( 1 ) of         An action against the French Republic was brought before
          the EC Treaty and therefore void;                           the Court of Justice on 5 March 1 996 by the Commission
 ---pagebreak--- 4 . 5 . 96                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 133/ 15
of the European Communities, represented by Hélène                      Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Michard and Enrico Traversa, acting as Agents, with an                  Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E.
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos               Servais .
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
The Commission claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the element concerning anchovy contained in the
( a ) declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force an                Annex to Council Regulation ( EC ) No 3074/95 of
       administrative provision extending to the leasing or                   22 December 1995 ( ! ) fixing, for certain fish stocks and
       letting of certain items of movable property the                       groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for
       exemption from VAT restricted by Community                             1996 and certain conditions under which they may be
       legislation exclusively to the leasing or letting of                   fished,
       immovable property, the French Republic has failed to
       fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Council Directive      — order the defendant institution to pay the costs .
       77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 ( the Sixth VAT Directive )
       on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
       relating to turnover taxes — common system of value              Pleas in law and main arguments
       added tax : uniform basis of assessment (');
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
( b ) order the French Republic to pay the costs .                      in Case C-179/95 ( 2 ).
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (>) OJ No L 330 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 1 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 10 .
The Commission considers that the exemption from VAT in
respect of the leasing or letting of certain items of movable
property, such as tents, caravans and mobile homes, goes
beyond the limits laid down by Article 13 ( B ) ( b ) of the Sixth
Directive, which applies only to the leasing or letting of
immovable property .
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 13 December
In the Commission's view, the uncertain interpretation of
                                                                        1995 in the case of Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v. Werner
the concept of a supply of services in the form of the leasing
                                                                                                        Skripalle
or letting of certain items of movable property which stems
from a hybrid interpretation, in accordance with criteria laid                                    ( Case C-63 /96 )
down by national law, of the supply of accommodation in a                                           ( 96/C 133/32 )
hotel or similar establishment, constitutes a major problem
which directly calls in question the system of uniform
taxation within the Community established by the Sixth                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Directive in relation to the leasing or letting of movable              European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                        ( Federal Finance Court ) — Eleventh Chamber — of 13
property .
                                                                        December 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
The Commission further observes that the provisions on                  on 8 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
exemption must be strictly interpreted, since they constitute           Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v. Werner Skripalle on the
an exception to the basic principle of the Directive, which             following questions :
establishes a common system of taxation of economic
                                                                         1 . Does Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC cover an
activities within the Community .
                                                                              authorization by the Council to introduce special
                                                                              measures for derogation from Directive 77/388/EEC (^
( 1 ) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                              in order to prevent tax avoidance which, in the case of
                                                                              supplies for consideration made between associated
                                                                              persons, apply the cost to the taxable person within the
                                                                              meaning of Article 11 A ( 1 ) (c ) of Directive 77/388/EEC
                                                                              as the minimum basis of assessment also where the
                                                                              agreed consideration represents the market rate but is
Action brought on 6 March 1996 by the Kingdom of Spain                        less than the minimum basis of assessment and there is
           against the Council of the European Union                          therefore no tax avoidance ?
                           ( Case C-61/96 )
                                                                        2 . Can a Member State invoke special measures under
                             ( 96/C 133/31 )                                  Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC as taxation rules
                                                                               applying to a taxable person, if neither the Council's
An action against the Council of the European Union was                       decision authorizing the measures was published in the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                            Official Journal of the European Communities nor the
Communities on 6 March 1 996 by the Kingdom of Spain,                          authorization procedure under Article 27 ( 2 ) to ( 4 )
represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del                          of Directive 77/388/EEC made public — after its