Case C-513/03: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  23 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch) — Heirs of M.E.A. van Hilten-van der Heijden v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (Capital movements — Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC) — Inheritance tax — Legal fiction that a national of a Member State who dies within 10 years of ceasing to reside in that Member State is deemed to have been resident there at the time of his death — Non-member State)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of capital, interpretation of the law, trade restriction

C 131/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Parties to the main proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

Applicants: Giuseppe Atzeni,
Ignazio Boi

Francesco Atzori, Giuseppe

Defendants: Regione autonoma della Sardegna

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Cagliari,
Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari — Validity of Commission Deci-
sion 97/612/EC of 16 April 1997 on aid granted by the
Region of Sardinia, Italy, in the agricultural sector (OJ L 248,
p. 27).

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of Commission Decision 97/612/EC of 16 April 1997
on aid granted by the Region of Sardinia, Italy, in the agricultural
sector has revealed no ground capable of affecting the validity of that
decision.

(1) OJ C 264, 01.11.2003.
OJ C 71, 20.03.2004

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Köln) — Siegfried Aulinger v Bundesrepublik
Deutschland

(Case C-371/03) (1)

(Foreign and security policy — Common commercial policy
— Embargo on the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro —
Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 — Carriage of persons)

(2006/C 131/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Siegfried Aulinger

Article 1(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 of 1 June
1992 prohibiting trade between the European Economic Community
and the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro must be interpreted as
meaning that the commercial carriage of persons to or from Serbia
and Montenegro in the form of split transport was prohibited.

transport’

‘Split
is to be understood as meaning the carriage of
persons to or from the territory covered by the embargo, organised by
means of a joint operation between an undertaking established in a
Member State of the Community and an undertaking established in
the territory covered by the embargo whereby the former provides
carriage to or from the area bordering the territory covered by the
embargo and the latter provides carriage from that point into the
territory covered by the embargo or from inside that territory to that
point (with passengers changing vehicles).

(1) OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerecht-
shof te 's-Hertogenbosch) — Heirs of M.E.A. van Hilten-
van der Heijden v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Parti-
culieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen

(Case C-513/03) (1)

(Capital movements — Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now
Article 56(1) EC) — Inheritance tax — Legal fiction that a
national of a Member State who dies within 10 years of
ceasing to reside in that Member State is deemed to have
been resident there at the time of his death — Non-member
State)

(2006/C 131/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Parties to the main proceedings

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Köln
—

Applicant: Heirs of M.E.A. van Hilten-van der Heijden

Defendant:
Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen

Inspecteur

van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/7

Re:

Parties to the main proceedings

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te 's-Herto-
genbosch — Interpretation of Articles 57(1) EC and 58(3) EC
and of Declaration (No 7) on Article 58 (formerly Article 73d)
of the Treaty establishing the European Community annexed to
the Final Act of the Maastricht Treaty — Tax provision of a
Member State concerning inheritance duty under which a
national of that State who had resided in that State and died
within ten years of leaving the national territory is deemed to
have been resident in that State for purposes of the application
of that duty — National residing in a non-member country at
the time of death

Operative part of the judgment

Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) is to be interpreted
as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State,
such as that in question in the main proceedings, by which the estate
of a national of that Member State who dies within 10 years of
ceasing to reside in that Member State is to be taxed as if that
national had continued to reside in that State, while enjoying relief in
respect of inheritance taxes levied by other States.

(1) OJ C 85, 03.04.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division
(Administrative Court)) — The Queen on the application
of Unitymark Ltd and North Sea Fishermen's Organisation
v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(Case C-535/03) (1)

(Fisheries — Cod — Limitation of fishing effort — Open
gear beam trawls — Principles of proportionality and non-
discrimination)

(2006/C 131/12)

Language of the case: English

Claimants: Unitymark Ltd and North Sea Fishermen's Organisa-
tion

Defendant: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of
England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative
Court) — Validity of paragraphs 4(b) and 6(a) of Annex XVII to
Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 of 20 December 2002
fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated condi-
tions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applic-
able in Community waters and,
in
waters where catch limitations are required (OJ 2003 L 356,
p. 12); Validity of Article 1 of Commission Decision
2003/185/EC of 14 March 2003 on the allocation of additional
days absent from port to Member States in accordance with
Annex XVII to Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 —
Compatibility with Articles 28, 29, 33 and 34 EC — Principles
of proportionality and non-discrimination — Fundamental
freedom to pursue a trade or business

for Community vessels,

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question asked has disclosed no factor of such a
kind at to affect the validity of:

— paragraphs 4(b) and 6(a) of Annex XVII to Council Regulation
(EC) No 2341/2002 of 20 December 2002 fixing for 2003
the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish
stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters
and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are
required;

— paragraphs 4(b) and 6(a) of that annex as amended by Council

Regulation (EC) No 671/2003 of 10 April 2003;

— Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/185/EC of 14 March
2003 on the allocation of additional days absent from port to
Member States in accordance with Annex XVII to Regulation No
2341/2002.

Referring court

(1) OJ C 47, 21.02.2004.

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench
Division (Administrative Court)