CELEX: C1997/252/20
Language: en
Date: 1997-08-16 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 1997 in Case C-269/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München): Francesco Benincasa v. Dentalkit Srl (Brussels Convention - Concept of consumer - Agreement conferring jurisdiction)

16 . 8 . 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 252/ 11
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the
                                                                           Convention of 27 September 1968 also have exclusive
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                          jurisdiction where the action seeks in particular a
                         of 3 July 1997                                    declaration that the contract containing that clause is
                                                                           void.
in Case C-269/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Miinchen): Francesco Benincasa v.
                         Dentalkit Sri (')                            (') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
(Brussels    Convention — Concept of consumer —
               Agreement conferring jurisdiction)
                          ( 97/C 252/20 )
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                              ( Sixth Chamber)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will he
           published in the European Court Reports)                                              of 3 July 1997
                                                                      in Case C-330/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal
In Case C-269/95 : reference to the Court by the Oberlan­
desgericht Miinchen ( Germany ) under the Protocol of                 Centre ): Goldsmiths (Jewellers ) Ltd v. Commissioners of
3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice                                 Customs and Excise ( 1 )
of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction
and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial              ( VAT — Sixth Directive — Right to derogate provided for
                                                                      in Article 11 C (1 ) — No refund for barter transactions in
matters, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                                         the case of non-payment)
pending before that court between Francesco Benincasa
and Dentalkit Sri on the interpretation of the first
                                                                                                 ( 97/C 252/21 )
paragraph of Article 13 , the first paragraph of Article 14
and the first paragraph of Article 17 of the
aforementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 ( OJ No
 L 299, 31 . 12 . 1972 , p. 32 ), as amended by the
 Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the                                 (Language of the case: English)
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
 Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304 , 30 . 10 .
 1978 , p. 1 ; amended version of the Convention at p. 77 )
— the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.
                                                                      In Case C-330/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N.
 Kakouris ( Rapporteur), P. J. G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm,              of the EC Treaty by the Value Added Tax Tribunal ,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General ; L.                 Manchester Tribunal Centre (United Kingdom ), for a
 Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
 judgment on 3 July 1997, in which it has ruled :                     that court between Goldsmiths (Jewellers ) Ltd and
                                                                      Commissioners of Customs and Excise — the Court ( Sixth
                                                                      Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini , President of the
                                                                      Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn,
 1 . The first paragraph of Article 13 and the first                  G. Hirsch and R. Schintgen, Judges; M. A. La Pergola,
     paragraph of Article 14 of the Convention of                     Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
     27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July 1997, in which
     enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial                 it has ruled :
     matters, as amended by the Corwention of 9 October
     1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,
     Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
     Northern Ireland, must be interpreted as meaning that
     a plaintiff who has concluded a contract with a view              On a proper construction, the derogation provided for in
     to pursuing a trade or profession, not at the present             the second subparagraph of Article 11 C (1 ) of the Sixth
     time but in the future, may not be regarded as a                  Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
     consumer.
                                                                      harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                       to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
                                                                       uniform basis of assessment — does not authorize a
                                                                       Member State which enacts provisions for the refund of
 2 . The courts of a Contracting State which have been                 VAT in the case of total or partial non-payment of the
     designated in a jurisdiction clause validly concluded             consideration to refuse that refund where the unpaid