19.5.

2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 150/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-113/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)): Herta Schmid v Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (1) (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Minimum tax on capital companies) (2001/C 150/08)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-150/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt, Sweden): Svenska Staten v Stockholm Lindöpark AB and between Stockholm Lindöpark AB and Svenska Staten (1) (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive — Exemptions — Letting of immovable property — Practice of sport or physical education) (2001/C 150/09)

(Language of the case: German) (Language of the case: Swedish) (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports) In Case C-113/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court), Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Herta Schmid, acting as insolvency administrator for P.P. Handels GmbH, in liquidation, and Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland — on the interpretation of Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it has ruled: On its proper construction, Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not preclude the levying, as against insolvent capital companies lacking own revenue or whose annual revenue does not exceed a certain amount, of a minimum tax, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, payable for each quarter in respect of which those companies have unlimited liability to corporation tax. (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports) In Case C-150/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Svea Hovrätt (Svea Court of Appeal), Sweden for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Svenska Staten (Swedish State) and Stockholm Lindöpark AB and between Stockholm Lindöpark AB and Svenska Staten (Swedish State) — on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(m) and Article 13B(b) 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 value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting as President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevon, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von ´ Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it has ruled: 1. The provisions of Article 13A(1)(m) and 13B(b) 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 value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, preclude national legislation from providing for a general exemption from value added tax for the supply of premises and other facilities and the related supply of accessories or other arrangements for the practice of sport or physical education, including services supplied by profit-making organisations. The provisions of Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388, read together with those of Articles 2, 6(1) and 13B(b), are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional for an individual to rely on them as against a Member State before a national court.

(1) OJ C 160 of 5.06.1999.

2.

C 150/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.5.2001

3.

The implementation of a general exemption from value added tax for the supply of premises and other facilities and for the related supply of accessories or other arrangements for the purposes of the practice of sport or physical education, where no such exemption is to be found in Article 13 of Directive 77/388, constitutes a serious breach of Community law that can render a Member State liable in damages.

time which a driver necessarily spends travelling to take over a vehicle subject to the obligation to instal and use a tachograph and which is not at the driver’s home or the employer’s operational centre, regardless of whether the employer gave instructions as to when and how to travel or whether that choice was left to the driver; periods of driving spent by a driver whilst performing a transport service falling outside the scope of Regulation No 3821/85 before taking over a vehicle to which that regulation applies.


(1) OJ C 188 of 3.07.1999.

(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-297/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nottingham Magistrates’ Court): criminal proceedings against Skills Motor Coaches Ltd, B.J. Farmer, C.J. Burley and B. Denman (1) (Social legislation relating to road transport — Tachograph record sheets — Obligation to record periods of work, breaks in work and rest periods) (2001/C 150/10) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-448/99: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1) (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 97/13/EC) (2001/C 150/11) (Language of the case: English) In Case C-297/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nottingham Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against Skills Motor Coaches Ltd, B.J. Farmer, C.J. Burley and B. Denman — on the interpretation of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevon, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate ´ General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it has ruled: (Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports) In Case C-448/99: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Nolin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into force all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 8(3) and 9(2) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevon (Rapporteur), Judges; ´ P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it:

On a proper construction of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport, a driver’s obligation to record all other periods of work extends to:

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful