CELEX: C2002/118/20
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-18 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 21 March 2002 in Case C-267/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office)): Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Zoological Society of London (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(2)(a), second indent — Exempt transactions — Bodies managed and administered on a voluntary basis)

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
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/14               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            18.5.2002
Bench Division (Crown Office), for a preliminary ruling in the                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
proceedings pending before that court between Com-
missioners of Customs and Excise and Zoological Society
of London, on the interpretation of the second indent of                                              (Third Chamber)
Article 13A(2)(a) 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 of                                             19 March 2002
value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145,
p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                  in Case C-268/00: Commission of the European Communi-
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                                ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
judgment on 21 March 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Quality of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of
                                                                                                   Directive 76/160/EEC)
                                                                                                       (2002/C 118/21)
1.   On a proper construction of the second indent of
     Article 13A(2)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/
     EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
     Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
     of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the condition
     requiring a body to be managed and administered on an
     essentially voluntary basis refers only to members of that body       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     who are designated in accordance with its constitution to direct                           in the European Court Reports)
     it at the highest level, as well as other persons who, without
     being designated by the constitution, do in fact direct it in that
     they take the decisions of last resort concerning the policy of
     that body, especially in the financial area, and carry out the
     higher supervisory tasks.                                             In Case C-268/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and C. van der Hauwaert) v
                                                                           Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: M. A. Fierstra): Appli-
                                                                           cation for a declaration that, by failing to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of Council Directive 76/160/EEC
                                                                           of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water
2.   On a proper construction of the second indent of                      (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1) within the periods prescribed by that
     Article 13A(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, the words            directive, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
     ‘on an essentially voluntary basis’ refer to the members who          fulfil its obligations under Community law, the Court (Third
     compose the organs entrusted with the management and                  Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
     administration of a body of the kind referred to in that provision    C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;
     and those persons who, without being designated by the                F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     constitution, do in fact direct it, and refer also to the reward      judgment on 19 March 2002, in which it:
     which the latter may receive, habitually or exceptionally, from
     that body.
                                                                           1.     Declares that, by failing to fulfil its obligations as regards the
                                                                                  quality of bathing water and the frequency of sampling thereof
                                                                                  within the periods prescribed by Council Directive 76/160/EEC
                                                                                  of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water,
                                                                                  the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                  obligations under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that directive;
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                           2.     Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.