CELEX: C2001/150/13
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 January 2001 in Case C-429/97: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — VAT — Eighth Directive — Refund of VAT paid in another Member State — Sixth Directive — Place of supply — Services relating to the collection, sorting, transport and disposal of waste)

19.5.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 150/7
1.      Declares that, by failing to bring into force all of the laws,      1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply               period the national measures transposing Articles 4(2), 6(1),
      with Articles 8(3) and 9(2) of Directive 97/13/EC of the                    (3) and (4), 7, 8(2), (3), (4) and (6), 11(2) and 12 of
      European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on                  Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      a common framework for general authorisations and individual                Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of
      licences in the field of telecommunications services, the Grand             personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommuni-
      Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under              cations sector, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      that directive;                                                             obligations under Article 15 of that directive;
2.     Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear the costs.              2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 192 of 8.07.2000.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.02.2000.
                                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
                           (Fourth Chamber)                                                         of 25 January 2001
                          of 18 January 2001                                in Case C-429/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                 ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-151/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v French Republic (1)                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — VAT
                                                                            — Eighth Directive — Refund of VAT paid in another
                                                                            Member State — Sixth Directive — Place of supply —
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      Services relating to the collection, sorting, transport and
Directive 97/66/EC — Processing of personal data and                                                  disposal of waste)
protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector —
                           Non-transposition)
                                                                                                      (2001/C 150/13)
                            (2001/C 150/12)
                                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                               in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-429/97: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: H. Michard and E. Traversa) v French Republic
                                                                            (Agents: initially by K. Rispal-Bellanger and G. Mignot, then by
In Case C-151/00: Commission of the European Communities                    K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam,) — application for a declar-
(Agent: B. Mongin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-                    ation that, by refusing to refund value added tax to taxable
Bellanger and A. Lercher) — application for a declaration that,             persons not established in France, in cases where those taxable
by failing to bring into force and to communicate to the                    persons had subcontracted part of their work to a taxable
Commission within the prescribed period the national                        person established in France, the French Republic has failed
measures transposing Articles 4(2), 6(1), (3) and (4), 7, 8(2),             to fulfil its obligations under the Eighth Council Directive
(3), (4) and (6), 11(2) and 12 of Directive 97/66/EC of the                 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997                  the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection               Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable
of privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ 1998 L 24,                  persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ
p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations             1979 L 331, p. 11), in particular Article 2 thereof — the Court
under Article 15 of that directive — the Court (Fourth                      (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the                      Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;                N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 January 2001, in
judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                   which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 150/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.5.2001
1.    Declares that, by refusing to refund to taxable persons              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
      established in a Member State other than the French Republic,        richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that
      who are holders of a main contract for a composite supply of         court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Winward
      services relating to waste disposal, the value added tax which                                  Industries Inc.
      they have been required to pay to the French State in cases
      where they have subcontracted part of the work covered by such                                  (Case C-54/01)
      a contract to a taxable person established in France, the French
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Eighth
      Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the                                        (2001/C 150/15)
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the       European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof
      country, in particular Article 2 thereof;                            of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                           Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          case of Winward Industries Inc. on the following questions on
                                                                           the interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First
3.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                         Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) to
                                                                           approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
(1) OJ C 55 of 20.02.1998.                                                 marks:
                                                                           1.    In determining whether a three-dimensional trade mark
                                                                                 which depicts the shape of a product has distinctive
                                                                                 character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the
                                                                                 above directive is there a stricter test for distinctive
                                                                                 character than in the case of other forms of trade marks?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that                    2.    In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which depict
    court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Linde AG                            the shape of the product, does Article 3(1)(c) of the
                                                                                 Directive have any significance independently of
                                                                                 Article 3(1)(e)? If so, when considering Article 3(1)(c) —
                           (Case C-53/01)                                        or alternatively Article 3(1)(e) — must regard be had to
                                                                                 the interest of the trade in having the shape of the product
                          (2001/C 150/14)                                        available for use, so that registration is, at least in
                                                                                 principle, ruled out and is possible as a rule only in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           case of trade marks which meet the requirements of
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof                        Article 3(3), first sentence, of the directive?
of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Linde AG on the following questions on the                     (1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.
interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks:
1.    In determining whether a three-dimensional trade mark
      which depicts the shape of a product has distinctive
      character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the
      above directive is there a stricter test for distinctive             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
      character than in the case of other forms of trade marks?            richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that
                                                                           court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Rado Uhren
2.    In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which depict                                             AG
      the shape of the product, does Article 3(1)(c) of the
      Directive have any significance independently of                                                (Case C-55/01)
      Article 3(1)(e)? If so, when considering Article 3(1)(c) —
      or alternatively Article 3(1)(e) — must regard be had to
      the interest of the trade in having the shape of the product                                   (2001/C 150/16)
      available for use, so that registration is, at least in
      principle, ruled out and is possible as a rule only in the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      case of trade marks which meet the requirements of                   European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof
      Article 3(3), first sentence, of the directive?                      of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                           Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.                                                    case of Rado Uhren AG on the following questions on the
                                                                           interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First Council
                                                                           Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) to approximate
                                                                           the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks: