Case C-264/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Breisach — Germany) — Badischer Winzerkeller eG v Land Baden-Württemberg (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Merger of companies — Rectification of the land register — Charging of a fee — Whether a transfer duty — Conditions for charging the fee)
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid for restructuring, capital movement, company law, company with share capital, direct tax, interpretation of the law, share capital

C 190/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.8.2006

Interveners in support of the defendant: Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly and C. Laden-
burger, Agents) and Federal Republic of Germany (represented
by: A. Tiemann, W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the last subparagraph of Article 4(1), Article 4(6)
and Article 8 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22
September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003
L 251, p. 12) — Derogations from the right to family reunifica-
tion of minor children.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the application;

2) Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

3) Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission of

the European Communities to bear their own costs.

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC
and 49 EC — French system for the grant of
licences to
performing artists established in another Member State who do
not possess a licence issued under comparable conditions in
their State of origin — Presumption of salaried status applied
to performing artists recognised as service providers established
in their State of origin where they usually provide similar
services

Operative part of the judgment

1. By making the grant of a licence to performing artists' engage-
ments agencies, established in another Member State, subject to
the need to engage performers, and

— by imposing the presumption of salaried status on performing
artists who are recognised as service providers and established
in their Member State of origin, where they usually provide
similar services,

— the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under

Article 49 EC.

(1) OJ C 47, 21.02.2004.

2. The action is dismissed as to the remainder.

3. The Commission of the European Communities and the French

Republic are ordered to bear their own costs.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006 —
the European Communities v French
Commission of

(1) OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.

Republic

(Case C-255/04) (1)

(Admissibility — Inconsistency between the grounds pleaded
and the heads of claim in the application initiating proceed-
ings — Rule whereby a Court may not rule ultra petita —
Article 49 EC — National legislation making the grant of a
licence subject to the needs of the market — National legisla-
tion imposing a presumption of salaried status — Reversal of
the burden of proof — Absence of detailed procedural rules
within the meaning of the Peterbroeck case-law — Social
protection — Coordination of the applicable legislation by
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Pre-emption — Action to
combat concealed employment)

(2006/C 190/03)

Language of the case: French

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht
Breisach — Germany) — Badischer Winzerkeller eG v
Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-264/04) (1)

(Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of
capital — Merger of companies — Rectification of the land
register — Charging of a fee — Whether a 'transfer duty' —
Conditions for charging the fee)

(2006/C 190/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. Traversa and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, Agents)

Referring court

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and
A. Hare, Agents)

Amtsgericht Breisach

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/3

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Badischer Winzerkeller eG

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Breisach
-am- Rhein — Interpretation of Articles 4, 10 (c) and 12(2)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
73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 (OJ 1973 L 103, p. 13), Council
Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 (OJ 1973 L 103, p. 15),
Council Directive 74/553/EEC of 7 November 1974 (0J 1974 L
303, p. 9), and Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985
(0J 1985 L 156, p. 23) — Fee due for rectification of the land
register following a change of owner of an agricultural coop-
erative company as a result of merger and calculated by refer-
ence to the value of the land

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. A fee charged for rectification of the land register, such as that at
issue in the main proceedings, falls in principle within the prohibi-
tion under Article 10(c) 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.

2. A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings may, in dero-
gation from Article 10(c) of Directive 69/335, as amended by
Directive 85/303, be regarded as a transfer duty authorised by
Article 12(1)(b) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive
85/303, provided it is not higher than those applicable to similar
operations in the taxing Member State.

It is for the national court to verify whether that tax complies with
the provisions of Article 12(2) of Directive 69/335, as amended
by Directive 85/303.

(1) OJ C 228, 11.09.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Poitiers, France) — Conseil général de la Vienne v
Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects

(Case C-419/04) (1)

(Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Remission of
import duties — Conditions — Article 871 of the regulation
implementing the Community Customs Code — Scope of the
obligation to submit the case to the Commission — Failure
on the part of a person liable for payment acting in good
faith to declare additional royalties which should have been
incorporated in the customs value of imported goods)

(2006/C 190/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Poitiers

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Conseil général de la Vienne

Respondent: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'Appel de Poitiers
(Court of Appeal, Poitiers, France) — Interpretation of Article
871 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July
1993 laying down provisions
the implementation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Com-
munity Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Recovery of
the amount of the customs debt — Obligatory nature of refer-
ence to the Commission in the event of doubt as to the scope
of the criteria relating to the recovery or the remission of
duties resulting from a customs debt

for

Operative part of the judgment

Article 871 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July
1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1677/98 of
29 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of
remission of uncollected
a recovery procedure or a procedure for
customs duties, the national customs authorities are not required to
submit the case to the Commission for a decision where the doubts
which they had had as regards the precise scope of the criteria laid
down in Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code with
regard to a particular case have disappeared, even after those authori-
ties have expressed their intention to refer the matter to the Commis-
sion, or where the doubts relate to the subsequent entry in the