Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 November 2002 in Case C-473/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal d'instance de Vienne): Cofidis SA v Jean-Louis Fredout (Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Action brought by a seller or supplier — National provision prohibiting the national court from finding a term unfair, of its own motion or following a plea raised by the consumer, after the expiry of a limitation period)
Date: 2003-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, consumer protection, contract, interpretation of the law

C 7/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2003

1. Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude a national provision such
as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the
transferor at undervalue of shares in companies from the benefit
of deferral of tax due on capital gains made on those shares
where the transfer is to a foreign legal person in which the
transferor directly or indirectly has a holding — provided that
that holding gives him definite influence over the decisions of
that foreign legal person and allows him to determine its
activities — or to a Swedish limited company which is a branch
of such a foreign legal person.

2. Articles 56 EC and 58 EC preclude a national provision such
as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the
transferor at undervalue of shares in companies from the benefit
of deferral of tax due on capital gains made on those shares
where the transfer is to a foreign legal person in which the
transferor directly or indirectly has a holding which is not such
as to give him definite influence over the decisions of that
foreign legal person or allow him to determine its activities.

preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Cofidis SA and Jean-Louis Fredout, on the
interpretation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993
on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95,
p. 29), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
Timmermans,
President
the
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola and P.
Jann (Rapporteur),
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
21 November 2002, in which it has ruled:

Chamber,

C.W.A.

of

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in
consumer contracts precludes a national provision which, in proceed-
ings brought by a seller or supplier against a consumer on the basis
of a contract concluded between them, prohibits the national court,
on expiry of a limitation period, from finding, of its own motion or
following a plea raised by the consumer, that a term of the contract
is unfair.

( 1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.

(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 21 November 2002

(Sixth Chamber)

of 21 November 2002

in Case C-473/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the tribunal d’instance de Vienne): Cofidis SA v Jean-
Louis Fredout (1)

in Case C-23/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hof van Beroep te Brussel): Robelco NV v Robeco
Groep NV (1)

(Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts
— Action brought by a seller or supplier — National
provision prohibiting the national court from finding a term
unfair, of its own motion or following a plea raised by the
consumer, after the expiry of a limitation period)

(Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(5) — Provisions on
protection against use of a sign other than for the purposes
of distinguishing goods or services — Extent of such
protection — Signs similar to the mark)

(2003/C 7/06)

(Language of the case: French)

(2003/C 7/07)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

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

In Case C-473/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
for a
EC by the Tribunal d’instance de Vienne (France)

In Case C-23/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between