Case C-451/05: 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 (Direct taxation — Tax on the commercial value of immovable property in France owned by legal persons — Holding companies under Luxembourg law — Refusal of exemption — Directive 77/799/EEC — Non-exhaustive list of specified taxes and duties — Tax similar in nature — Limits to exchange of information — Bilateral convention — Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) — Free movement of capital — Combating tax evasion)
Date: 2007-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, Luxembourg, corporation tax, holding company, interpretation of the law, tax convention, tax law

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;

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/9

3) Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) must be inter-
preted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in
the main proceedings, which exempts companies established in
France from the tax on the commercial value of immovable property
owned in France by legal persons, when, in respect of companies
established in another Member State,
it makes that exemption
subject either to the existence of a convention on administrative
assistance between the French Republic and that State for the
purposes of combating tax avoidance and tax evasion or to the
existence of a requirement in a treaty containing a clause prohi-
biting discrimination on grounds of nationality to the effect that
those companies cannot be more heavily taxed than companies
established in France, and which does not allow the company estab-
lished in another Member State to supply evidence to establish the
identity of the natural persons who are its shareholders.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

lished and against the person, established in the territory of
another Member State, who undertook that obligation without
being the agent or representative of the person in question —
Contractual nature of actions

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of
22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enfor-
cement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be inter-
preted as meaning that the fact that claims brought against a
number of defendants have different legal bases does not preclude
application of that provision.

2. Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 applies where claims
brought against different defendants are
connected when the
proceedings are instituted, that is to say, where it is expedient to
hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable
judgments resulting from separate proceedings, without there being
any further need to establish separately that the claims were not
brought with the sole object of ousting the jurisdiction of the courts
of the Member State where one of the defendants is domiciled.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 October
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
domstolen — Sweden) — Freeport plc v Olle Arnoldsson

(1) OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

(Case C-98/06) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(1) — Special juris-
diction — More than one defendant — Legal bases of the
actions — Abuse — Likelihood of success of an action
brought in the courts for the place where one of the defen-
dants is domiciled)

(2007/C 297/12)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Freeport plc

Defendant: Olle Arnoldsson

Re:

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 October
2007 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the
Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — Proceedings
Christiane
brought

Gerda Möllendorf

and

by

Möllendorf-Niehuus

(Case C-117/06) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy — Specific restrictive
measures directed against persons and entities associated with
Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban —
Freezing of funds and economic resources — Regulation (EC)
No 881/2002 — Articles 2(3) and 4(1) — Prohibition on
making economic resources available to persons listed in
Annex I to that Regulation — Scope of prohibition — Sale of
immovable property — Contract concluded before inclusion of
a buyer in the list in Annex I — Application for registration
of the transfer of ownership in the Land Register subsequent
to that inclusion)

(2007/C 297/13)

Language of the case: German

Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commer-
cial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1 — Special jurisdiction — More
than one defendant — Actions brought
simultaneously
concerning an obligation of payment against a legal person
before the court in a country where that legal person is estab-

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin