Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-415/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Indirect taxes — Directive 69/335/EEC — Raising of capital — Tax on stock exchange transactions — Tax on the delivery of bearer securities)
Date: 2004-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, free movement of capital, indirect tax, securities, stock-exchange transaction

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/7

On a proper construction of Articles 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) and 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now
Article 88(3) EC), bye-laws adopted by a trade association governed
by public law for the purpose of funding an advertising campaign
organised for the benefit of its members and decided on by them,
through resources
levied from those members and compulsorily
earmarked for the funding of that campaign, do not constitute an
integral part of an aid measure within the meaning of those provi-
sions and it was not necessary for prior notification of them to be
given to the Commission since it has been established that
that
funding was carried out by means of resources which that trade asso-
ciation, governed by public law, never had the power to dispose of
freely.

(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, the opera-
tive part of which is as follows:

in the Member State

Article 1 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on
tax exemptions applicable to permanent
imports from a Member
State of the personal property of individuals must be interpreted as
not precluding, in connection with a transfer of residence of the owner
of a vehicle from one Member State to another, a tax such as that
laid down by the Autoverolaki (1482/1994) (Law on Car Tax) from
being charged before the registration or bringing into use of
the
vehicle
transferred.
However, having regard to the requirements deriving from Article 18
EC, it is for the national court to ascertain whether the application of
national law is capable of ensuring that, as regards that tax, that
owner is not placed in a less favourable situation than that of citizens
who have been permanently resident in the Member State in question
and, if necessary, whether such a difference of treatment is justified by
objective considerations independent of the residence of the persons
concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by national
law.

to which residence

is

(First Chamber)

(1) OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-365/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)): Marie Lindfors (1)

(Directive 83/183/EEC — Transfer of residence from one
Member State to another — Tax levied before registration or
bringing into use of a vehicle)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

(2004/C 228/13)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

in Case C-415/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Indirect
taxes — Directive 69/335/EEC — Raising of capital — Tax
on stock exchange transactions — Tax on the delivery of
bearer securities)

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

(2004/C 228/14)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-365/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court)
(Finland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court brought by Marie Lindfors — on the interpre-
tation of Article 1 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28
March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent
imports from a Member State of the personal property of indi-
viduals (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 64), — the Court (First Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S.
von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur),
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,

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

In Case C-415/02: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: R. Lyal and C. Giolito) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent:
A. Snoecx assisted by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, avocat) —
application for a declaration that:

C 228/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.9.2004

— by imposing the tax on stock exchange transactions on
applications made in Belgium for new securities issued
when a company or investment fund is being set up or
following the completion of an increase in capital or as part
of a loan issue, and

— by imposing the tax on the delivery of bearer securities on
the physical delivery of bearer securities relating to Belgian
or foreign Government stocks, in the case of new securities
issued when a company or investment fund is being set up
or following the completion of an increase in capital or as
part of a loan issue,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
its obligations
under Article 11 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ,
English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by
Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L
156, p. 23) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:
C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges;
Advocate General: A. Tizzano; for the Registrar: M.-F. Contet,
Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, in
which it:

1. Declares that,

by imposing the tax on stock exchange transactions on applica-
tions made in Belgium for new securities issued when a company
or investment fund is being set up or following the completion of
an increase in capital or as part of a loan issue, and

by imposing the tax on the delivery of bearer securities on the
physical delivery of bearer securities relating to Belgian or foreign
in the case of new securities issued when a
Government stocks,
company or investment
fund is being set up or following the
completion of an increase in capital or as part of a loan issue,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 11 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by
Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985;

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-424/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
75/439/EEC — Disposal of waste oils — Priority to be given
to the processing of waste oils by regeneration)

(2004/C 228/15)

(Language of the case: English)

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

In Case C-424/02: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis) v United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: M. Bethell, assisted
by M. Demetriou) — application for a declaration that, by
failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provi-
sions necessary to comply with Article 3(1) of Council Direc-
tive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils
(OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23), as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC
of 22 December 1986 (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43), requiring
Member States to take the measures necessary to give priority
to the processing of waste oils by regeneration or, in any event,
by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court
the
(First Chamber), composed of: P.
Chamber), A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rappor-
teur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004,
in
which it:

Jann (President of

1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary under
Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975
on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Council Directive
to give priority to the
87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986,
processing of waste oils by regeneration, the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Ireland to pay the costs.

2. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

(1) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.

(1) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.