Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2002 in Case C-385/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): F. W. L. de Groot v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Free movement of workers — Tax convention — Netherlands rules on the avoidance of double taxation)
Date: 2003-02-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: double taxation, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, tax convention, tax on income, tax system

C 31/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.2.2003

A. Dal Ferro) appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of
8 June 2000, in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/
98 Camar and Tico v Commission and Council [2000] ECR II-
2193, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties
to the proceedings being: Camar Srl, established in Florence
(Italy), (avocats: W. Viscardini Donà, M. Paolin and S. Donà),
applicant at first instance in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97
and T-117/98, Tico Srl, established in Padua (Italy), (avocats:
W. Viscardini Donà, M. Paolin and S. Donà), applicant at first
instance in Case T-117/98, Council of the European Union
(Agent: by F. Ruggeri Laderchi), defendant at first instance in
Case T-260/97, French Republic (Agents: C. Vasak and G. de
Bergues) intervener at first instance in Joined Cases T-79/96
and T-260/97, and Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
by F. Quadri), intervener at first instance in Case T-79/96, —
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
C.W.A. Timmermans, (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 2002, in
which it:

1.

Set aside the judgment of 8 June 2000 in the Court of First
instance in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98
Camar and Tico v Commission and Council in so far as it
allowed, in Case T-117/98, the application for annulment of
the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities
of 23 April 1998 rejecting the application made by Camar Srl
and Tico Srl on the basis of Article 16(3) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common
organisation of the markets in the banana sector;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

3. Dismisses the application annulment in Case T-117/98 as

inadmissible;

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 12 December 2002

in Case C-324/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Münster): Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v
Finanzamt Steinfurt (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Tax provisions — Corporation
tax — Covert distribution of profits — Tax credit —
Coherence of the tax system — Tax evasion)

(2003/C 31/03)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-324/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH and Finanzamt Steinfurt, on the
interpretation of Article 43 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and
A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 12 December 2002, in which it has ruled:

Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as precluding a measure such as
that contained in Paragraph 8a(1), Head 2, of the Körperschaft-
steuergesetz (Law on corporation tax).

(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 12 December 2002

4. Order Camar Srl and Tico Srl to pay the costs in Case T-117/

98;

in Case C-385/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): F. W. L. de Groot v
Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

5. Orders the parties to bear their own costs in the appeal

proceedings.

(Free movement of workers — Tax convention — Nether-
lands rules on the avoidance of double taxation)

( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.

(2003/C 31/04)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-385/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a

8.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/3

preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between F. W. L. de Groot and Staatssecretaris van
Financiën, on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
1968 on freedom of movement
for workers within the
Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rappor-
the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,
teur), President of
D.A.O. Edward, P.
Judges; P. Léger,
Jann and A. Rosas,
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it
has ruled:

1. Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39
EC) precludes
issue in the main
rules such as those at
proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down
in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby
a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable
by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of
that income and of his personal tax advantages because, during
the year in question, he also received income in another Member
State which was taxed in that State without his personal and
family circumstances being taken into account.

2.

Community law contains no specific requirement with regard to
the way in which the State of residence must take into account
the personal and family circumstances of a worker who, during
a particular tax year, received income in that State and in
another Member State, except that the conditions governing the
way in which the State of residence takes those circumstances
into account must not constitute discrimination, either direct or
indirect, on grounds of nationality, or an obstacle to the exercise
of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the EC Treaty.

( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 12 December 2002

in Case C-281/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Council of the European Union (1)

(International agreements — Community competence —
Legal basis — Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC — Energy
Star Agreement — Energy-efficient labelling programmes
for office equipment)

(2003/C 31/05)

(Language of the case: English)

cation for annulment of Council Decision 2001/469/EC of
14 May 2001 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the
European Community of the Agreement between the Govern-
ment of the United States of America and the European
Community on the coordination of energy-efficient labelling
programs for office equipment (OJ 2001 L 172, p. 1), the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2001/469/EC of 14 May 2001
concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community
of the Agreement between the Government of the United States
of America and the European Community on the coordination
of energy-efficient labelling programs for office equipment;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 December 2002

in Case C-491/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen v
Secretary of State for Health, ex parte: British American
Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd,
supported by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International
SA (1)

(Directive 2001/37/EC — Manufacture, presentation and
sale of tobacco products — Validity — Legal basis —
Articles 95 EC and 133 EC — Interpretation — Applicability
to tobacco products manufactured in the Community and
intended for export to non-member countries)

(2003/C 31/06)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-281/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: H. van Lier and B. Martenczuk) v Council of the
European Union (Agents: J.-P. Jacqué and E. Karlsson): Appli-

In Case C-491/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that