Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 March 2003 in Case C-306/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6): Petrolvilla & Bortolotti Spa and Others v Agenzia delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital)
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: corporation tax, interpretation of the law, tax law, tax on capital

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/5

2.

The Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de
Álava, the Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral
de Bizkaia, the Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa — Diputación
Foral de Gipuzkoa y Juntas Generales de Gipuzkoa and the
Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco are
ordered to pay the costs.

A tax such as the tax on companies’ net assets does not constitute a
tax having an economic effect equivalent
to capital duty and,
accordingly, is not incompatible with Council Directive 69/335/EEC
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special
Edition 1969, as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June
1985.

( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

(1) OJ 2002 C 261.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 27 March 2003

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
Stuttgart by order of that Court of 7 April 2003 in
the case concerning notarial costs with the following
participants: (1) Notar Mathias Längst, (2) SABU Schuh
& Marketing GmbH, (3) President of the Landgericht
Stuttgart and (4) District Auditor of the Landgericht
Stuttgart

in Case C-306/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento,
Sezione No 6): Petrolvilla & Bortolotti Spa and Others v
Agenzia delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 69/
335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital)

(2003/C 213/08)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-306/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Petrolvilla & Bortolotti Spa and
Others and Agenzia delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento
— on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English
Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 25), as amended by Directive 85/
303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the Court
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
27 March 2003, in which it has ruled:

(Case C-165/03)

(2003/C 213/09)

Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Stuttgart
(Regional Court, Stuttgart) of 7 April 2003, received at the
Court Registry on 10 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the case concerning notarial costs with the following
participants:
(1) Notar Mathias Längst, (2) SABU Schuh &
Marketing GmbH, (3) President of the Landgericht Stuttgart
and (4) District Auditor of the Landgericht Stuttgart on the
following questions:

1)

In a legal system such as that of the Württemberg region
of Baden-Württemberg, where there are both notaries
who are self-employed and notaries who are employed as
civil servants and the notary himself is always the person
to whom the fees are due, but where,
if the services
concerned are carried out by a notary employed as a civil
servant, he must remit a — fixed — portion of the fees
to the State, which is his employer and which uses those
proceeds to fund its activities, are the fees of the notary
employed as a civil servant for the notarisation of a legal
transaction covered by Directive 69/335, as amended, to
be regarded as tax for the purposes of that directive, in
contrast to the situation that gave rise to the order in
Case C-264/00 Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-GmbH (not yet
published in the European Court reports)?