Case C-497/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d'Arrondissement de Luxembourg by order of 19 December 2001 in the case of Zita Modes SARL v Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines
Date: 2002-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, provision of services, tax harmonisation

C 44/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.2.2002

ensure to a great extent the quality of medical services, so that
specific measures restricting the basic freedoms enshrined in
the Treaty should be exceptional and fully justified by special
circumstances. As for monitoring in particular, there is nothing
to prevent laboratories established in other Member States
agreeing, voluntarily, to comply with French standards when
applying for authorisation nor is there anything to prevent
French inspectors from travelling abroad so long as their
inspection is freely consented to by the laboratories concerned.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’Ar-
rondissement de Luxembourg by order of 19 December
2001 in the case of Zita Modes SARL v Administration
de l’enregistrement et des domaines

(Case C-497/01)

(2002/C 44/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 19 December 2001 by the
Tribunal d’Arrondissement de Luxembourg which was received
at the Court Registry on 24 December 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Zita Modes SARL v Administration de
l’enregistrement et des domaines on the following questions:

Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1)
to be interpreted as meaning that the transfer of a totality
of assets to a taxable person constitutes a sufficient
condition for the transaction not to be made subject to
value added tax, whatever the taxable person’s activity
may be or whatever use he makes of the property
transferred?

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is
Article 5(8) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as
meaning that the transfer of a totality of assets to a
taxable person is to be understood as meaning a transfer
of all or part of an undertaking to a taxable person who
continues the whole activity of the transferor undertaking
or continues the activity of the branch corresponding to
the part of the totality of assets transferred, or merely as
meaning a transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof
to a taxable person who continues the transferor’s line of
activity in whole or in part, without there being any
transfer of an undertaking or branch of an undertaking?

If the answer to any part of the second question is in the
affirmative, does Article 5(8) of the Sixth Directive require
or allow a State to require that the recipient’s activity be
pursued in accordance with the licence issued by the
competent authority for the activity or branch of activity
stipulated, assuming that the activity pursued falls within
lawful economic channels in the sense contemplated in
the case-law of the Court of Justice?

2.

3.

1.

Is Article 5(8) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.