Case C-251/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 6 June 2006 — Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr
Date: 2006-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company with share capital, head office, indirect tax, interpretation of the law, transfer of businesses

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 6 June
2006 — Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH v
Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

company, had waived the charging of capital duty by
repealing the relevant national legal basis for that duty?

(Case C-251/06)

(2006/C 212/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

Questions referred

is that company,

1. If the effective centre of management of a company, firm,
association or legal person is transferred from a Member
State which has abolished capital duty before its formation
to another Member State which charges capital duty at that
firm, association or legal person
time,
precluded from being classified as a capital company ‘for the
purposes of charging capital duty’ within the meaning of
Article 4(1)(g) of Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969
as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC (2) of 10 June 1985
and Article 4(3)(b) of Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 by
the fact that the first mentioned Member State has waived
the charging of capital duty by repealing the relevant
national legal basis for that duty?

2. Does Article 7(2) of Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985
the Member State to which a capital company
prohibit
transfers the effective centre of management, on the occa-
sion of the transfer of the effective centre of management,
from charging capital duty on the transactions described in
Article 4(1)(a) and (g) of Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
1969 as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June
1985 if the transactions took place at the time when the
capital company had its effective centre of management in a
Member State which, prior to the formation of the capital

(1) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1969 (II), p. 412.
(2) OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 7 June 2006 — Zürich
Versicherungs-Gesellschaft v Bureau Benelux des marques

(Case C-254/06)

(2006/C 212/22)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zürich Versicherungs-Gesellschaft

Defendant: Bureau Benelux des marques

Question referred

Are Articles 3 and 13 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member
States relating to trade marks (1),
to be interpreted as not
precluding national
legislation from providing that a court
hearing an appeal against a decision on an application for a
trade mark registration may not check, in respect of each of
the goods or services for which registration has been applied
for, that none of the grounds for refusal of registration listed in
Article 3(1) of the directive applies to the mark and thus reach
different conclusions depending on the goods or services
concerned,
if the authority responsible for registering trade
marks has merely issued a blanket refusal covering all the
goods and services and, during the procedure before that
in the alternative,
authority,
partial registration for certain goods and services.

the applicant has not sought,

(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1