Cases C-266/04, C-267/04, C-268/04, C-269/04, C-270/04: References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Saint-Etienne by judgments of that Tribunal of 5 April 2004 in the following cases: SAS Nazairdis against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC, JACELI SA against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC, KOMOGO SA against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC, Tout pour la maison SARL against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC, SAS Distribution Casino France against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC
Date: 2004-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, State aid, handicrafts, interpretation of the law, pension scheme, sales occupation, secondary sector, self-employment, social security

C 228/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.9.2004

2. When applying the directive, should no distinction be made
between fees for the provision of services by the State and
taxes, with the result that ‘fees’ under the Kostenordnung
can be assimilated to taxes on the transfer of ownership?

3. Should the Court answer the second question in the affirma-
tive, should the last sentence of Article 12(2) of the directive
be interpreted as meaning that an exception arises from the
fact that Article 60 of the Kostenordnung (Gesetz über die
Kosten in Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit,
in the version of 26 July 1957, Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 960),
for example, makes no provision for a charge for rectifying
the land register in succession cases where the application
for registration is made within two years following the
death?

company has its registered office and the Member State in
which the shareholder is resident provides, with reference to
the commentaries on the OECD Model Tax Convention,
that there is to be a lower rate of taxation than that applied
to a share repurchase payment made to a shareholder in the
first Member State and a shareholder in the second Member
State and also permits a deduction corresponding to the
nominal value of the repurchased shares, do the articles
mentioned in the previous question permit, in those circum-
stances, a Member State to apply a rule such as that set out
above?

3. Do Articles 43 EC and 48 EC permit a Member State to

apply a rule such as that set out above?

(1) OJ L 249, p. 25.
(2) OJ L 103, p. 13.
(3) OJ L 103, p. 15.
(4) OJ L 303, p. 9.
(5) OJ L 156, p. 23.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kammarrätten i
Sundsvall by order of that court of 17 June 2004 in the
case of Margaretha Bouanich against the Skatteverket

(Case C-265/04)

(2004/C 228/43)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Kammarrätten i Sundsvall
(Sundsvall Administrative Court of Appeal)
(Sweden) of 17
June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 24 June 2004, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Margaretha Bouanich against
the Skatteverket
(Local Tax Board), Gävle office on the
following questions:

1. Do Articles 56 EC and 58 EC permit a Member State to tax
a payment in respect of a share repurchase, paid out by a
limited company in the Member State, in the same way as a
dividend, without there being a right to deduct the cost of
acquisition of the repurchased share, if the payment is made
to a shareholder who is not domiciled or permanently resi-
dent
in the Member State, whereas a share repurchase
payment made by such a limited company to a shareholder
domiciled or permanently resident in the Member State is
instead taxed as if it were a capital gain, with a right to
deduct the cost of acquisition of the repurchased share?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is no: When the double taxation
agreement between the Member State in which the limited

References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunal des
affaires de sécurité sociale de Saint-Etienne by judgments
of that Tribunal of 5 April 2004 in the following cases:
SAS Nazairdis against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation
Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-
Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales —
Caisse ORGANIC, JACELI SA against Caisse Nationale de
l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des
Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et
Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC, KOMOGO SA against
Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance
Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions
Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC, Tout
pour la maison SARL against Caisse Nationale de l'Organi-
sation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs
Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales
— Caisse ORGANIC, SAS Distribution Casino France
against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'As-
surance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Profes-
sions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC

(Cases C-266/04, C-267/04, C-268/04, C-269/04, C-270/04)

(2004/C 228/44)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgments of the Tribunal des affaires de
sécurité sociale de Saint-Etienne (Saint-Etienne Social Security
Tribunal)
the Court
(France) of 5 April 2004, received at
Registry on 24 June 2004 and 25 June 2004 (Case C-270/04),
for a preliminary ruling in the following cases:

— SAS Nazairdis against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation
Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-
Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales —
Caisse ORGANIC (Case C-266/04)

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/23

— Jaceli SA against Caisse Nationale de

l'Organisation
Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-
Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales —
Caisse ORGANIC (Case C-267/04)

the Court Registry on 25 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Azienda Agricola Elena Di Doi against Azienda
per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) on the following ques-
tion:

— Komogo SA against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation
Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-
Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales —
Caisse ORGANIC (Case C-268/04)

— Tout pour la maison SARL against Caisse Nationale de l'Or-
ganisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs
Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales
— Caisse ORGANIC (Case C-269/04)

Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1)of 31 March
1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2)of 28
December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the additional
levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of an adminis-
trative penalty with the result that producers are liable to pay it
only where quantities allocated have been exceeded by them
intentionally or as a result of negligence?

(1) OJ 1984 L 90, p. 10.
(2) OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1.

— SAS Distribution Casino France against Caisse Nationale de
l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travail-
leurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commer-
ciales — Caisse ORGANIC (Case C-270/04).

The Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Saint-Etienne
asks the Court of Justice of the European Communities to give
a preliminary ruling on the following question:

des

Carburants

(Fuel Distributors'

Should Article 87 EC be interpreted as meaning that State
funding by France through the Comité Professionnel de la
Distribution
Trade
Committee) (‘the CPDC’) and through the Fonds d'Intervention
pour la Sauvegarde de l'Artisanat et du Commerce (Intervention
Fund for the Support of Crafts and Trade) (‘the FISAC’) by way
of assistance when self-employed craftsmen and traders retire
and grants made to the old-age insurance scheme for self-
employed persons in manufacturing and trading occupations,
and to the scheme for self-employed persons in the craft sector
constitute State aid?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Tolmezzo by order of that Court of 16 June 2004 in the
case of Azienda Agricola Elena Di Doi against Azienda per
le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

(Case C-271/04)

(2004/C 228/45)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Tolmezzo by order of that Court of 16 June 2004 in the
case of Azienda Agricola Franco Piemonte against Azienda
per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

(Case C-272/04)

(2004/C 228/46)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale di Tolmezzo
(District Court, Tolmezzo, Italy) of 16 June 2004, received at
the Court Registry on 25 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Azienda Agricola Franco Piemonte against
in Agricoltura (AGEA) on the
Azienda per
following question:

le Erogazioni

Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March
1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of 28
December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the additional
levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of an adminis-
trative penalty with the result that producers are liable to pay it
only where quantities allocated have been exceeded by them
intentionally or as a result of negligence?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale di Tolmezzo
(District Court, Tolmezzo, Italy) of 16 June 2004, received at

(1) OJ 1984 L 90, p. 10.
(2) OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1.