You are on page 1of 2

8.1.

2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/13

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber) (First Chamber)

of 11 November 2004
of 28 October 2004

in Case C-171/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-148/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Maatschap
the Oberlandesgericht München): Nürnberger Allgemeine Toeters, M.C. Verberk v Productschap Vee en Vlees (1)
Versicherungs AG v Portbridge Transport International
BV (1)
(Beef and veal — Early marketing premium for calves —
Time-limit for lodging premium applications — Rules for
(Brussels Convention — Articles 20 and 57(2) — Failure by calculating time-limit — Validity of Regulation (EEC) No
the defendant to enter an appearance — Defendant domiciled 3886/92)
in another Contracting State — Geneva Convention on the
Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road —
Conflict between conventions) (2005/C 6/23)

(Language of the case: Dutch)
(2005/C 6/22)

(Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-148/03: reference for a preliminary ruling pursuant
to the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the
In Case C-171/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfs-
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
leven (Netherlands), made by decision of 13 April 2003,
Commercial Matters, made by the Oberlandesgericht München
received at the Court on 14 April 2003, in the proceedings
(Germany), by decision of 27 March 2003, received at the
between Maatschap Toeters, M.C. Verberk, trading as ‘Verberk-
Court on 31 March 2003, in the proceedings between Nürn-
Voeten’, and Productschap Vee en Vlees — the Court (First
berger Allgemeine Versicherungs AG and Portbridge Transport
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
International BV — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; M.
A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R.
given a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which it has
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October 2004,
ruled:
the operative part of which is as follows:

1. (a) Article 3(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom)
Article 57(2)(a) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Juris- No 1182/71 of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applic-
diction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial able to periods, dates and time-limits is to be interpreted as
Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the meaning that a period expressed in weeks, such as that laid
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United down by Article 50a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules
25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the for the application of the premium schemes provided for in
Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common orga-
Spain and the Portuguese Republic and by the Convention of 29 nisation of the market in beef and repealing Regulations
November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the (EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89, as amended by
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, should be inter- Commission Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December
preted as meaning that the court of a Contracting State in which a 1996, ends with the expiry of the last hour of whichever day
defendant domiciled in another Contracting State is sued may derive in the last week is the same day of the week as the day on
its jurisdiction from a specialised convention to which the first State is which the slaughter took place.
a party as well and which contains specific rules on jurisdiction, even
where the defendant, in the course of the proceedings in question,
submits no pleas on the merits. (b) When applying Article 50a of Regulation No 3886/92, a
Member State may not establish the time at which a premium
application was lodged pursuant to national procedural rules
(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003. which apply within its national legal system to comparable,
national periods for making applications.
C 6/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 8.1.2005

(c) Article 50a of Regulation No 3886/92 must be interpreted meaning that transactions by which one company, through a number
as meaning that a premium application may be regarded as of contracts, simultaneously grants associated companies a licence to
having been ‘lodged’ in due time only if the competent occupy a single property in return for a payment set essentially on the
authority received it prior to the expiry of the time-limit. basis of the area occupied and by which the contracts, as performed,
have as their essential object the making available, in a passive
manner, of premises or parts of buildings in return for a payment
2. Consideration of the question referred has disclosed nothing linked to the passage of time, are transactions comprising the ‘letting
capable of affecting the validity of Article 50a(1) of Regulation of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision and not
No 3886/92 to the extent that it excludes the applicant from the provision of a service capable of being categorised in a different
receiving the premium entirely whenever the period for making way.
applications is exceeded, irrespective of how and by what extent.

(1) OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.
(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

(First Chamber) of 28 October 2004

of 18 November 2004
in Case C-357/03 Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Republic of Austria (1)
in Case C-284/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): Etat belge v Temco Europe
SA (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 98/24/EC — Protec-
tion of the health and safety of workers — Risks related to
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(b) — Exempt transac- chemical agents at work — Failure to transpose throughout
tions — Letting of immovable property — Licence to occupy) the territory of the Member State concerned within the
prescribed period)

(2005/C 6/24)
(2005/C 6/25)
(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-357/03 Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: D. Martin and H. Kreppel) v Republic of Austria
(Agent: E. Riedl) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to
In Case C-284/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under fulfil obligations, brought on 19 August 2003 – the Court
Article 234 EC from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Brussels (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermanns
Court of Appeal) (Belgium), by decision of 19 June 2003, (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.
received at the Court on 2 July 2003, in the proceedings Makarczyk, P. Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
between Etat belge and Temco Europe SA — the Court (First General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 October
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, 2004, in which it:
A. Rosas (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S.
von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it has 1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all
ruled: the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply fully with Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998
on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks
Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May related to chemical agents at work (14th individual Directive
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC),
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) must be interpreted as that directive;