Case C-429/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Saintes, France) — Max Rampion, Marie-Jeanne Rampion, née Godard v Franfinance SA, K par K SAS (Directive 87/102/EEC — Consumer credit — Right of the consumer to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit for non-performance or performance not in accordance with the contract relating to the goods or services financed by the credit — Conditions — Indication in the offer of credit of the goods or service being financed — Credit facility enabling the credit granted to be used on a number of occasions — Possibility for the national court to raise of its own motion the right of the consumer to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit)
Date: 2007-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, credit control, interpretation of the law

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/7

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Félix Palacios de la Villa

Defendant: Cortefiel Servicios SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de
Madrid — Interpretation of Art. 2(1) of Council Directive
2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general
framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
(OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National rules transposing the direc-
tive which include a transitional provision whereby compulsory
retirement clauses not justified by employment policy objectives
but contained in collective agreements are deemed valid.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
d'instance
France) — Max Rampion,
Marie-Jeanne Rampion, née Godard v Franfinance SA, K
par K SAS

Saintes,

de

(Case C-429/05) (1)

(Directive 87/102/EEC — Consumer credit — Right of the
consumer to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit for
non-performance or performance not in accordance with the
contract relating to the goods or services financed by the
credit — Conditions — Indication in the offer of credit of the
goods or service being financed — Credit facility enabling the
credit granted to be used on a number of occasions — Possibi-
lity for the national court to raise of its own motion the right
of the consumer to pursue remedies against the grantor of
credit)

(2007/C 297/10)

Language of the case: French

Operative part of the judgment

The prohibition on any discrimination on grounds of age, as imple-
mented by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000
establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment
and occupation, must be interpreted as not precluding national legisla-
tion such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which
compulsory retirement clauses contained in collective agreements are
lawful where such clauses provide as sole requirements that workers
must have reached retirement age, set at 65 by national law, and must
have fulfilled the conditions set out in the social security legislation for
entitlement to a retirement pension under their contribution regime,
where

Referring court

Tribunal d'instance de Saintes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Max Rampion, Marie-Jeanne Rampion, née Godard

Defendants: Franfinance SA, K par K SAS

— the measure, although based on age, is objectively and reasonably
justified in the context of national law by a legitimate aim relating
to employment policy and the labour market, and

Re:

— the means put in place to achieve that aim of public interest do
not appear to be inappropriate and unnecessary for the purpose.

(1) OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d'instance de
Saintes — Interpretation of Articles 11 and 14 of Council
Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approxima-
tion of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of
the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42,
p. 48) — National legislation making application of the rules on
interdependence between a credit agreement and a sale contract
conditional on an indication being made, in the credit offer, of
the goods being financed — Credit facility arrangement which
does not indicate the goods being financed but is clearly linked
to the contract of sale — Whether possible for the national
courts to raise of their own motion arguments relating to the
regulation of consumer credit.

C 297/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.12.2007

Operative part of the judgment

Parties to the main proceedings

1. Articles 11 and 14 of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of
22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of
the Member States concerning
consumer credit, as amended by Directive 98/7/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, must be
interpreted as meaning that the right to pursue remedies, provided
for in Article 11(2) of Directive 87/102, as amended, which the
consumer enjoys against the grantor of credit, may not be made
subject to the condition that the prior offer of credit must indicate
the goods or services being financed.

Applicant: Européenne et Luxembourgeoise d'investissements SA
(ELISA)

Defendant: Directeur général des impôts, Ministère public

2. Directive 87/102, as amended by Directive 98/7, must be inter-
preted as allowing national courts to apply of their own motion the
provisions transposing Article 11(2) of Directive 87/102 into
national law.

Re:

(1) OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 October
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Cassation — France) — Européenne et Luxembourgeoise
d'investissements SA (ELISA) v Directeur général des
impôts, Ministère public

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Cassation
seq. and
(France) — Interpretation of Article 43 EC et
Article 56 EC et
seq., and Article 1 of Council Directive
77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assis-
tance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the
field of direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15) — Tax on the
commercial value of immoveable property situated in France —
Exemption of
legal persons having their effective centre of
management in France, legal persons which, under a treaty, are
not to be taxed more heavily and legal persons having their seat
in a country or territory which has concluded with France a
convention on administrative assistance to combat tax evasion
and avoidance — Refusal to grant an exemption to a Luxem-
bourg holding company.

(Case C-451/05) (1)

Operative part of the judgment

(Direct taxation — Tax on the commercial value of immovable
property in France owned by legal persons — Holding compa-
nies under Luxembourg law — Refusal of exemption — Direc-
tive 77/799/EEC — Non-exhaustive list of specified taxes and
duties — Tax similar in nature — Limits to exchange of infor-
mation — Bilateral convention — Article 73b of the EC Treaty
(now Article 56 EC) — Free movement of capital —
Combating tax evasion)

(2007/C 297/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Court of Cassation

1) The tax on the commercial value of immovable property owned in
France by legal persons is a tax which is similar in nature to those
taxes referred to in Article 1(3) of Council Directive 77/799/EEC
of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the compe-
tent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and
indirect taxation, as amended by Council Directive 92/12/EEC of
25 February 1992, which is levied on elements of capital within
the meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive;

2) Directive 77/799, as amended by Directive 92/12, and in particu-
lar Article 8(1) thereof, does not preclude two Member States from
binding themselves by means of an international convention, with
the intention of avoiding double taxation and establishing rules for
reciprocal administrative assistance in the area of taxes on income
and capital, which excludes from its scope,
in respect of one
Member State, one category of taxpayers subject to a tax covered
by that directive, if the competent authority of the Member State
which should furnish information is prevented by its laws or
administrative practices from collecting or using such information
for that State's own purposes, this being a matter which it is for
the national court to verify;