Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2007:36
Date: 2007-01-18
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Economic and monetary policy;Euro
Concepts: Euro
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment Economic and monetary policy – Introduction of the euro – Conversion between the euro and national currency units (Council Regulations Nos 1103/97 and 974/98) Whilst it is true that Regulation No 1103/97 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro and Regulation No 2866/98 on the conversion rates between the euro and the currencies of the Member States adopting the euro have in no way undermined the fiscal competence of Member States and their ability to increase the amount of their taxes, it is no less true that the conversion into euros of the amount of a tax must be effected in a manner which respects the provisions laid down by Regulation No 1103/97, the principle of continuity of legal instruments and the objective of neutrality in the transition to the euro. That implies, in particular, requirements of legal certainty and transparency which allow for protection of the confidence of economic agents in the introduction of the euro. Therefore, Regulations Nos 1103/97 and 974/98 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, on effecting the conversion into euros of an amount of tax on quantities of flour, meal and groats of common wheat supplied or used for human consumption, raised it to an amount higher than that which would have resulted from application of the rules of conversion provided for in those regulations, unless such an increase meets the requirements of legal certainty and transparency guaranteed by those regulations, which presupposes that the legislative texts at issue make it possible to distinguish clearly the decision of the authorities of a Member State to increase that amount from the operation of conversion of that amount into euros. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is so in the proceedings before it. (see paras 32-33, 37, operative part)