Case C-509/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  18 May 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Magpar VI BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — Article 7(1)(b) and (bb) — Capital duty — Exemption — Requirements — Retention for a period of five years of shares acquired)
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital movement, interpretation of the law, merger, share, tax exemption, tax on capital, tax system

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/9

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof —
Interpretation of Article 1(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No
1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supple-
mentary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992
L 182, p. 1) — Concept of ‘combination of active ingredients
of a medicinal product’ — Medicinal product composed of an
active ingredient and an excipient, which constitutes a neces-
sary form of administration of the active ingredient in order to
avoid toxic effect

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(b) of Council Regulation No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992
concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for
medicinal products, in the version resulting from the Act concerning
the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Trea-
ties on which the European Union is founded, must be interpreted so
as not to include in the concept of ‘combination of active ingredients
of a medicinal product’ a combination of two substances, only one of
which has therapeutic effects of its own for a specific indication, the
the medicinal
other
product which is necessary for the therapeutic efficacy of the first
substance for that indication.

rendering possible a pharmaceutical

form of

(1) OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 May 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Magpar VI BV v Staats-
secretaris van Financiën

(Case C-509/04) (1)

taxes on the

(Indirect
capital — Directive
69/335/EEC — Article 7(1)(b) and (bb) — Capital duty —
Exemption — Requirements — Retention for a period of five
years of shares acquired)

raising of

(2006/C 165/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Applicant: Magpar VI BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Neder-
landen — Interpretation of Article 7(1)(bb) 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),
inserted by Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973
varying the field of application of the reduced rate of capital
duty provided for in respect of certain company reconstruction
operations by Article 7(1)(b) of
the Directive concerning
indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Shares in a company
which are no longer retained by another company following a
merger — Five-year period — Disposal of shares

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Article 7(1)(b) and (bb) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17
July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as
amended by Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 and
by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be
interpreted as meaning that, where a first capital company, within
five years after the acquisition of shares in a second capital
company in the course of a share merger that is exempt from
capital duty, ceases to hold those shares because the second
company has itself merged with a third capital company and has,
as a result, ceased to exist, the first company having acquired
shares in the third company by way of consideration, the require-
ment
five years the shares initially
acquired, laid down by subparagraph (bb) of the provision in ques-
tion, is not transferred to the shares the first company holds in the
third company.

to retain for a period of

2. The fact that the second sentence of the second sub-subparagraph
of Article 7(1)(bb) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directives
73/79 and 85/303, refers to a ‘transfer’ of shares held as a result
of a transaction that is exempt from capital duty is not relevant to
the first question.

(1) OJ C 31, 05.02.2005.