Case C-268/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg of the Antwerp judicial district by judgment of that Court of 13 June 2003 in the case of Jean-Claude De Baeck against Belgian State, Ministry of Finance
Date: 2003-11-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, capital gains tax, interpretation of the law, organisation, tax system

C 289/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.11.2003

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
Eerste Aanleg of the Antwerp judicial district by judgment
of that Court of 13 June 2003 in the case of Jean-Claude
De Baeck against Belgian State, Ministry of Finance

(Case C-268/03)

(2003/C 289/22)

‘Split transport’ is to be understood as meaning:

The carriage of persons to or from the territory covered
by the embargo by means of a joint operation between
an undertaking established in a Member State of the
Community and an undertaking established in the terri-
tory covered by the embargo,
the former providing
carriage to the vicinity of the border of the territory
covered by the embargo and the latter carriage from there
into the territory covered by the embargo (the passengers
changing vehicle).

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van
Eerste Aanleg (First-instance court) of the Antwerp judicial
district of 13 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on
19 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Jean-
Claude De Baeck against Belgian State, Ministry of Finance on
the following question:

2.

If the Court of
Justice finds that split transport was
permissible: Was there an obligation under Article 10 or
Article 297 EC or other provisions of Community law to
consult other Member States and/or the Commission
before taking national measures based on the unlaw-
fulness of split transport?

Do Articles 43, 46, 48, 56 and 58 EC preclude Belgian
legislation, namely Articles 67(8) and 67ter of the WIB64,
pursuant to which the surplus values realised on the occasion
of the transfer for valuable consideration, otherwise than in
the context of the exercise of a business activity, of shares, or
other proof of entitlement to holdings, in Belgian companies,
associations, establishments or institutions are liable to tax
where the transfer is to a foreign company, association,
establishment or institution, even though in the same circum-
stances those surplus values are not liable to tax where the
transfer is to a Belgian company, association, establishment or
institution?

(1) OJ L 151, p. 4.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
’s-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that Court of 24 July
2003 in the case of D against head of the Private
Individuals/Enterprises/Foreign Countries/Heerlen unit

(Case C-376/03)

(2003/C 289/24)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt Köln by order of that Court of 21 August 2003
in the proceedings between Aulinger and The Federal
Republic of Germany

(Case C-371/03)

(2003/C 289/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 21 August 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 1st September 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Aulinger and
The Federal Republic of Germany on the following questions:

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te ’s-
Hertogenbosch (Regional Court of Appeal, ’s-Hertogenbosch)
of 24 July 2003, received at the Court Registry on 8 September
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of D against head of
the Private Individuals/Enterprises/Foreign Countries/Heerlen
unit on the following questions:

1. Does Community law, and in particular Article 56 EC et
seq., preclude legislation such as that referred to in the
main proceedings, under which a domestic taxpayer is
always entitled to deduction of a tax allowance in respect
of wealth tax, whereas a foreign taxpayer has no such
entitlement in the case where the assets in question are
situated predominantly in the taxpayer’s State of residence
(in which no wealth tax is levied)?

1. Was Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 1432/92 (1) of
1 June 1992 (the so-called ‘Embargo Regulation’) to be
interpreted as meaning that the commercial carriage of
persons to or from the territory covered by the embargo
involving so-called ‘split’
transport was permitted or
prohibited?

2.

If not, does it make a difference in this case that the
Netherlands has, under a bilateral treaty, granted to
residents of Belgium, who in all other respects are
to the tax
in comparable circumstances, entitlement
allowance (where no wealth tax is levied in Belgium
either)?