Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 11 March 2004 In Case C-9/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: corporation tax, interpretation of the law, right of establishment, tax avoidance, tax system

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/5

— to identify completely waters pursuant to Article 3(1) in
accordance with the criteria set out in Annex I and to
notify these to the Commission,

— to designate vulnerable zones pursuant to Article 3(2) and/

or Article 3(4) thereof,

— to establish action programmes in accordance with Article

5 of the Directive, and

— to carry out correctly and completely monitoring and
review of waters in accordance with Article 6(1)(a), (b) and
(c) of the Directive,

Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations thereunder, the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President
the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans and S. von Bahr
of
(Rapporteur),
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in
which:

1) declares that by failing, within the time-limits provided for
in Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991
concerning the protection of waters against pollution
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources,

— to identify completely waters pursuant to Article 3(1) in

accordance with the criteria set out in Annex I,

— to designate vulnerable zones pursuant to Article 3(2) and/

or Article 3(4) thereof,

— to establish action programmes in accordance with Article

5 of the Directive, and

— to carry out correctly and completely monitoring and
review of waters in accordance with Article 6(1)(a), (b) and
(c) of the Directive,

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-496/01: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Patakia), with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Bergeot-
Nunes):

— Application for a declaration that,

— by requiring that bio-medical analysis laboratories estab-
lished in other Member States have their place of business
in France in order to obtain the requisite operating authori-
sation;

by precluding any reimbursement of the costs of bio-medical
analyses carried out by a bio-medical analysis laboratory estab-
lished in another Member State,

the
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles
43 EC and 49 EC, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V.
Skouris, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C.
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric
Gulmann,
(Rapporteur),
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March 2004, in which
it: 1.

Judges;

— Declares that, by imposing on bio-medical analysis labora-
tories established in other Member States, a requirement
that they have a place of business in France in order to
obtain the necessary operating authorisation and by
precluding any reimbursement of the costs of bio-medical
analyses carried out by a bio-medical analysis laboratory
established in another Member State, the French Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations thereunder.

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

2) Orders Ireland to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.

(1) OJ C 44 of 16.02.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

11 March 2004

In Case C-496/01: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
France — Freedom to provide services — Right of estab-
lishment — Rules governing bio-medical analysis labora-
tories — Conditions for the grant of an administrative
operating authorisation — Place of business in France)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

11 March 2004

In Case C-9/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d'État): Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant v
Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Article 52 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Tax legislation
— Transfer of residence for tax purposes to another
Member State — Methods of taxing increased value of
securities)

(2004/C 94/09)

(Language of the case: French)

(2004/C 94/08)

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

C 94/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2004

In Case C-9/02: References to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Conseil d'État (France) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Hughes de
Lasteyrie du Saillant and Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances
et de l'Industrie, on the interpretation of Article 52 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and
S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 11 March 2004, in which it has ruled:

The principle of freedom of establishment laid down by Article
52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from estab-
tax avoidance, a
to prevent a risk of
lishing,
mechanism for taxing as yet unrealised increases in value such
as that laid down by Article 167a of the French Code Général
des Impôts, where a taxpayer transfers his tax residence outside
that State.

in order

(1) OJ C 56 of 2.03.2002.

1. Examination of the second question has not revealed any
factors affecting the validity of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 306/2001 of 12 February 2001 concerning the classifi-
cation of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature, in
so far as it classifies the products described in points 2 and
3 of the table set out in the annex thereto under subheading
2101 22 02 92 of
the
Common Customs Tariff in the version set out in Commis-
sion Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001,
amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87
on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the
Common Customs Tariff.

the Combined Nomenclature of

2. The classification decided by the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities in Regulation No 306/2001 in respect of
the products identified at points 2 and 3 of the table set out
in the annex to that regulation is applicable by analogy to
two mixtures intended for the production of beverages with
a basis of tea, both composed of 64 % granulated sugar and
1.9 % extract of tea and water, to which is added, in one of
the two mixtures, 0.8 % citric acid.

(1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

4 March 2004

(Fifth Chamber)

4 March 2004

In Case C-130/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht München): Krings GmbH v Oberfinanz-
direktion Nürnberg (1)

(Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature —
Tariff heading — Preparation with a basis of extract of
tea)

(2004/C 94/10)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-130/02: References to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Finanzgericht München (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Krings GmbH and Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, first, on the
interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common
Customs Tariff (‘the CN’) in the version set out in Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001, amending
Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff
and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
Tariff (OJ 2001 L 279, p. 1) and, second, on the validity of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2001 of 12 February
2001 concerning the classification of certain goods in the
Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2001 L 44, p. 25), the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), acting
for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S.
von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2004, in which it
has ruled:

In Joined Cases C-238/02 and C-246/02 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): PARTIE 1 v
PARTIE 2 (1)

(Community Customs Code — Extent of the obligation as
to presentation of goods arriving at customs — National
legislation providing for an express declaration in respect
of hidden goods at the time of presentation of goods at
customs — Persons having brought in the goods and being
under a duty to declare them — Concept of customs
debtor)

(2004/C 94/11)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Joined Cases C-238/02 and C-246/02: References to the
Court under Article 234 EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt and Kazimieras
Viluckas (C-238/02), Ricardas Jonusas (C-246/02), on the inter-
pretation of Article 4(19), Article 40 and the first indent of
Article 202(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12
October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ
1992 L 302, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puisso-
chet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March
2004, in which it has ruled: