CELEX: C2002/118/18
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-18 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 19 March 2002 in Case C-224/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12 EC) — Difference in treatment of persons contravening the highway code according to the place of registration of their vehicle — Proportionality)

C 118/12                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           18.5.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      3.    Article 2(1) of Directive 77/388 is to be interpreted as
                                                                                   meaning that the annual subscription fees of the members of a
                                                                                   sports association such as that concerned in the main proceed-
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                        ings can constitute the consideration for the services provided by
                                                                                   the association, even though members who do not use or do not
                                                                                   regularly use the association’s facilities must still pay their
                             21 March 2002                                         annual subscription fees.
in Case C-174/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Kennemer Golf &
     Country Club v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(1)(m) — Exempt
transactions — Services connected with the practice of sport
               — Non-profit-making organisation)
                            (2002/C 118/17)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                     (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                                         19 March 2002
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-224/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                   ties v Italian Republic (1)
In Case C-174/00: Reference to the Court under Article 177                   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by Hoge Raad der                       Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12
Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the                    EC) — Difference in treatment of persons contravening the
proceedings pending before that court between Kennemer                       highway code according to the place of registration of their
Golf & Country Club and Staatssecretaris van Financiën, on                                        vehicle — Proportionality)
the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(m) of the Sixth Council
Directive 77/388/EC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                           (2002/C 118/18)
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 21 March 2002, in which it has                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ruled:                                                                                           in the European Court Reports)
1.    Article 13A(1)(m) 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               In Case C-224/00, Commission of the European Communities
      of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be               (Agents: C. O’Reilly and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agent:
      interpreted as meaning that the categorisation of an organis-          U. Leanza, assisted by O. Fiumara): Application for a declar-
      ation as ‘non-profit-making’ must be based on all the organis-         ation that, by maintaining in force a legislative rule (Article 207
      ation’s activities.                                                    of the Italian highway code) providing for different and
                                                                             disproportionate treatment of offenders according to the place
                                                                             of registration of their vehicle, the Italian Republic has failed
2.    Article 13A(1)(m) of Directive 77/388 is to be interpreted as          to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now,
      meaning that an organisation may be categorised as ‘non-               after amendment, Article 12 EC), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
      profit-making’ even if it systematically seeks to achieve surpluses    composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colner-
      which it then uses for the purposes of the provision of its            ic, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha
      services. The first part of the optional condition set out in the      Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
      first indent of Article 13A(2)(a) of Directive 77/388 is to be         Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 March 2002, in which
      interpreted in the same way.                                           it:
 ---pagebreak--- 18.5.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 118/13
1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force, in Article 207 of the         F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), A. La
      Italian highway code, a disproportionate difference in treatment      Pergola, J.P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
      between offenders based on the place of registration of their         and V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
      vehicles, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations   Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 2002, in
      under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,               which it has ruled:
      Article 12 EC);
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                         The special jurisdictional rule in matters relating to a contract, laid
                                                                            down in Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
                                                                            Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                  cial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
                                                                            the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
                                                                            Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is not applicable
                                                                            where, as in the present case, the place of performance of the
                                                                            obligation in question cannot be determined because it consists in an
                                                                            undertaking not to do something which is not subject to any
                                                                            geographical limit and is therefore characterised by a multiplicity of
                                                                            places for its performance. In such a case, jurisdiction can be
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     determined only by application of the general criterion laid down in
                                                                            the first paragraph of Article 2 of that Convention.
                          19 February 2002
                                                                            (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
in Case C-256/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles): Besix SA v Wasserreini-
gungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co. KG (WAB-
AG), Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft Dipl. Ing.
        W. Kretzschmar GmbH & Co. KG (Plafog) (1)
(Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Jurisdiction in
matters relating to a contract — Place of performance of the
obligation in question — Obligation not to do something,
applicable without geographical limit — Undertakings given
by two companies not to bind themselves to other partners                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
when tendering for a public contract — Application of
                              Article 2)
                                                                                                      (Fifth Chamber)
                           (2002/C 118/19)
                                                                                                       21 March 2002
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            in Case C-267/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
                    in the European Court Reports)                          Bench Division (Crown Office)): Commissioners of Cus-
                                                                                 toms and Excise v Zoological Society of London (1)
In Case C-256/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol                 (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(2)(a), second indent —
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of             Exempt transactions — Bodies managed and administered
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                                        on a voluntary basis)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                                                      (2002/C 118/20)
Besix SA and Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH
& Co. KG (WABAG), Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft
Dipl. Ing. W. Kretzschmar GmbH & Co. KG (Plafog), on
the interpretation of Article 5(1) of the aforementioned                                       (Language of the case: English)
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978
L 304, p. 1 and — amended version - p. 77), the Court,                      In Case C-267/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,                  EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s