Case C-178/05: Action brought on 19 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Date: 2005-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, agricultural cooperative, capital movement, head office, indirect tax, maritime transport, share capital, tax exemption

C 155/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.6.2005

or, on the contrary, having regard to the general principle of
equality and non-discrimination, is the inequality in treatment
created by Article 33.2 of the Workers' Statute and by the
interpretation made of that provision by the Tribunal Supremo
not objectively justified and, consequently, must compensation
for dismissal be included where it
is payable to a worker
pursuant to judicial conciliation within the ambit of Council
Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the protection of employees in the
event of
in the version
amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 23 September 2002?

the insolvency of

their employer,

(1) OJ L 238 of 28.10.1980, p. 23.
(2) OJ L 270 of 8.10.2002, p. 10.

Action brought on 19 April 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-178/05)

(2005/C 155/15)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 April
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by Dimitrios Triantafillou, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare

its

that, as a result of

legislative provisions
concerning the imposition of duty on the transfer of regis-
tered offices and the transfer of effective centres of manage-
ment and concerning the exemption from that duty of all
cooperative agricultural organisations of whatever level, of
associations and consortia thereof of any kind, of co-owner-
ship of vessels, of shipping consortia, and of shipping
companies of every kind, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Directive 69/335/EEC; (1)

fied as a capital company in the State of origin, with the result
that duty is not imposed when the Member State of origin does
not consider a company to be a capital company. The Commis-
sion therefore objects to the fact that the Greek legislation
ascribes importance only to whether or not capital duty is
imposed in the State of origin, exempting from duty only the
transfer to Greece of a registered office or effective centre of
management from a Member State which imposes capital duty.
The Commission's view is based on a both literal and systemic
interpretation of the directive, which is related to the nature as
capital companies of the companies liable for duty and is rein-
forced by the
about by Directive
amendment brought
85/303/EEC which moves towards abolition of capital duty.

As regards the exemption of agricultural cooperatives and ship-
ping companies, categories covering entire branches of the
economy are involved; the Greek authorities have not explained
why those categories do not comprise capital companies and
their total exemption is not covered by the power under the
directive to exempt certain transactions. Furthermore, where
the directive intended to exempt whole branches it did so
expressly (for example, public undertakings and organisations).

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.

Action brought on 21 April 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-179/05)

(2005/C 155/16)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 April
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by M. Nolin, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments of the Commission

The Commission submits that the relevant criterion for imposi-
tion of duty on the transfer of the registered office or effective
centre of management is whether or not the company is classi-

1. declare that, by failing to provide the Commission with the
information required under Article 18(1) and the first and
third indents of Article 19i of Regulation No 2847/93 (1),
the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that regulation;

2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.