Case C-167/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kantongerecht te Amsterdam by order of 5 February 2001 in the case of Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam and Inspire Art Ltd
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Liberalism, Netherlands, incorporation, interpretation of the law, right of establishment, subsidiary

14.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 200/41

2. Are the provisions of Article 9 of the Staff Regulations
of the European Communities (Article 2 of Council
Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 Febru-
ary 1968) and those contained in Annex II to the Staff
Regulations concerning the Staff Committee, which also
represents the interests of local staff of the Communities,
to be interpreted as laying down exhaustive rules on
collective employment law and the powers of co-decision
of local staff and thus as precluding the application of the
law on labour relations in the workplace laid down in the
Austrian Labour Constitution Act to local staff serving in
the Vienna representation of the Commission of the
European Communities?

(1) OJ 1968, L 56, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kantongerecht
te Amsterdam by order of 5 February 2001 in the case of
Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam
and Inspire Art Ltd

(Case C-167/01)

(2001/C 200/75)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 5 February 2001 by the
Kantongerecht te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Cantonal Court),
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Kamer van Koophandel
en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam and Inspire Art Ltd on the
following questions:

1.

Is (the new) Article 43 in conjunction with Article 48 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community to be
interpreted as precluding the Netherlands, pursuant to
the Wet op de formeel buitenlandse vennootschappen of
17 December 1997, from attaching additional conditions,
such as those laid down in Articles 2 to 5 of that law, to
the establishment in the Netherlands of a branch of a
company which has been set up in the United Kingdom
with the sole aim of securing the advantages which that
offers compared to incorporation under Netherlands law,
given that Netherlands law imposes stricter rules than
those applying in the United Kingdom with regard to the
setting-up of companies and payment for shares, and
given that the Netherlands law infers that aim from the
fact that the company carries on its activities entirely or
almost entirely in the Netherlands and, furthermore, does
not have any real connection with the State in which the
law under which it was formed applies?

2.

If, on a proper construction of those articles of the Treaty,
it is held that the provisions of the Wet op de formeel
buitenlandse vennootschappen are incompatible with
them, must Article 46 of the Treaty be interpreted as

meaning that the said Articles 43 and 48 do not affect
the applicability of the Netherlands rules laid down in
that law, on the ground that the provisions in question
are justified for the reasons stated by the Netherlands
legislature?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by decision of 11 April 2001 in the case of
Bosal Holding BV and Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-168/01)

(2001/C 200/76)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of 11 April 2001 by
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of
the
Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on
19 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bosal
Holding BV and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following
questions:

1. Does Article 52 of the EC Treaty, read in conjunction
with Article 58 thereof (now, following amendment,
Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48
thereof), or any other rule of EC law, preclude a Member
State from granting a parent company subject to tax in
that Member State a deduction on costs relating to a
holding owned by it only if the relevant subsidiary
company makes profits which are subject to tax in
the Member State in which the parent company is
established?

2. Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 1
if, where the subsidiary company is subject to tax based
on its profits in the Member State concerned but the
parent company is not, the relevant Member State takes
no account of the abovementioned costs in levying tax
on the subsidiary company?

Appeal brought on 19 April 2001 by Compan˜ ı´a Interna-
cional de Pesca y Derivados SA (INPESCA) against the
judgment delivered on 7 February 2001 by the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities (Second
Chamber) in Case T-186/98 between Compan˜ ı´a Interna-
cional de Pesca y Derivados SA (INPESCA) and the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-170/01 P)

(2001/C 200/77)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2001
by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities