CELEX: C2000/034/03
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 1999 in Case C-97/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pargas Tingsrätt): Peter Jägerskiöld v Torolf Gustafsson (Free movement of goods — Definition of "goods" — Angling rights — Freedom to provide services)

C 34/2                    EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              5.2.2000
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                   1. Fishing rights or fishing permits do not constitute ‘goods’ within
before that court between Questore di Verona and Diego                             the meaning of the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to the
Zenatti — on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC                        free movement of goods but form a ‘provision of a service’ within
Treaty concerning the freedom to provide services — the                            the meaning of the Treaty provisions relating to the freedom to
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,                           provide services.
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, R. Schintgen (Presi-
dents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet (Rappor-                 2. The provisions of the Treaty relating to the freedom to provide
teur), G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennel-                     services are not applicable to a situation, such as that in the main
ly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Regis-                    proceedings, which is confined in all respects within a single
trar, has given a judgment on 21 October 1999, in which it                         Member State.
held that:
                                                                              (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
The EC Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services do not
preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
reserves to certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events if
that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives intended
to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions
which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those
objectives.
                                                                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.
                                                                                                          (First Chamber)
                                                                                                       of 21 October 1999
                                                                              in Case C-233/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       Lensing & Brockhausen GmbH (1)
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                    (Community transit — Offence —Recovery of duties —
                                                                                                         Competent State)
                         of 21 October 1999
                                                                                                           (2000/C 34/04)
in Case C-97/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pargas Tingsrätt): Peter Jägerskiöld v Torolf Gustafs-
                                   son (1)                                                        (Language of the case: German)
(Free movement of goods — Definition of ‘goods’ — Angling
              rights — Freedom to provide services)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                   in the European Court Reports)
                            (2000/C 34/03)
                                                                              In Case C-233/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesfinanzhof
                    (Language of the case: Swedish)                           (Federal Finance Court), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                              the proceedings pending before that court between Hauptzol-
                                                                              lamt Neubrandenburg and Lensing & Brockhausen GmbH —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        on the interpretation of Article 36 of Council Regulation (EEC)
                     in the European Court Reports)                           No 222/77 of 13 December 1976 on Community transit (OJ
                                                                              1977 L 38, p. 1) as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
In Case C-97/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                  No 474/90 of 22 February 1990 with a view to abolishing
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pargas Tingsrätt                  lodgement of the transit advice note on crossing an internal
(District Court, Pargas), Finland, for a preliminary ruling in                frontier of the Community (OJ 1990 L 51, p. 1), and of
the proceedings pending before that court between Peter                       Article 11a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of
Jägerskiöld and Torolf Gustafsson — on the interpretation of                  27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the
the rules of the EC Treaty on the free movement of goods and                  Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications
the freedom to provide services — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  of that procedure (OJ 1987 L 107, P. 1) as amended by
composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the Second Chamber,                      Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990
acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, H. Ragnemalm                        (OJ 1990 L 137, p. 21) — the Court (First Chamber), composed
and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate                  of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,               (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
has given a judgment on 21 October 1999, in which it has                      Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
ruled:                                                                        on 21 October 1999, in which it has ruled: