Case C-251/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz, Austria) — Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr (Indirect taxes — Raising of capital — Transfer of the seat of a company — Abolition of the capital duty charged to a company)
Date: 2007-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company with share capital, head office, indirect tax, interpretation of the law, transfer of businesses

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/17

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 October 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Fortum Project Finance SA

of its own as consideration for that transfer. Article 12(1)(a) of the
directive allows such a duty to be charged.

(Case C-240/06) (1)

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

(Article 56(1) EC — Directive 69/335/EEC — Article 12(1)(a)
and (c) — Exception to the prohibition on double taxation of
contributions of capital — Contribution of capital in the form
of shares to a company established in another Member State
— Exchange of shares — Capital transfer tax)

(2007/C 315/27)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fortum Project Finance SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus —
Interpretation of Article 56 EC and Article 12(1)(c) 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) — Derogation from the prohibition of double taxation
concerning tax on capital contributions — Contribution in the
form of securities to a company established in another Member
State — Share transfer tax

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November
2007 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the
Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz, Austria) —
Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH v Finanzamt
Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

(Case C-251/06) (1)

(Indirect taxes — Raising of capital — Transfer of the seat of
a company — Abolition of the capital duty charged to a
company)

(2007/C 315/28)

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

Re:

Operative part of the judgment

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, must be interpreted as meaning that
Article 12(1)(c) does not apply to the charging of a duty, such as
Finnish capital transfer tax (varainsiirtovero), where securities are trans-
ferred as a contribution to a capital company which gives new shares

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat
— Interpretation of Article 4(1)(a) and (g), Article 4(3)(b) and
Article 7(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 Direc-
tive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) —
Capital duty charged to a company which has transferred its
effective centre of management from a Member State which has
abolished capital duty to a Member State which charges capital
duty

C 315/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.12.2007

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(g) and (3)(b) 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 and by 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 Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be inter-
preted to the effect that the waiver by a Member State of the charging
of capital duty does not preclude a company falling within one of the
categories referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of that directive from being
classified as a capital company for the purposes of charging capital
duty within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of that directive if its effec-
tive centre of management is transferred from that Member State to
another Member State in which that duty is still levied. Nevertheless,
the result of such an interpretation cannot be to encourage conduct
characterised by the putting in place of artificial arrangements with the
sole aim of obtaining a fiscal advantage. It is for the national court to
verify whether there is objective evidence of action constituting an
abusive practice of that kind in the circumstances of the main proceed-
ings.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November
2007 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Cour
d'appel de Montpellier, France) — Criminal proceedings
Bonnarel
against Daniel

(C-260/06),

Escalier

Jean

plant protection product
from another Member State by a
farmer solely for the needs of his own farm when that product
already has marketing authorisation in another Member State
granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC subject to a
simplified authorisation procedure designed to verify that the
product meets identity conditions and subject to the payment of
a charge of EUR 800

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Declares that a Member State may subject to a simplified marketing
authorisation procedure the parallel
import of a plant protection
product from another Member State in which it already has the benefit
of such an authorisation, where the importation is made by a farmer
solely for the needs of his farm, and the marketing authorisation thus
granted is personal to each operator. It cannot be made a condition of
that authorisation that the imported product be named with the brand
name belonging to the operator concerned where he is a farmer who is
making the parallel importation solely for the needs of his own farm.
That authorisation cannot be subject to payment of a charge which
bears no relation to the costs incurred by the control or the administra-
tive steps needed for examination of the authorisation application. An
appraisal of such costs as a fixed sum is however permissible provided
that the principle of proportionality is observed.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

(C-261/06)

(Joined Cases C-260/06 and C-261/06) (1)

(Plant protection products — Parallel imports — Marketing
authorisation procedure — Whether permissible — Conditions
— Observance of the principle of proportionality)

(2007/C 315/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Montpellier, France

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October
the European Union,
2007 — J.C. Blom v Council of

Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-344/06 P) (1)

(Appeal — Action for damages — Non-contractual liability
— Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Produ-
cers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking —
SLOM 1983 producers — Failure to resume production on
expiry of the undertaking)

(2007/C 315/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

Daniel Escalier (C-260/06), Jean Bonnarel (C-261/06)

Parties

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Montpel-
lier — Interpretation of Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty and
of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning
the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991
L 230, p. 1) — National legislation making the importation of a

Appellant: J.C. Blom (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and S.
C.H Molin, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
(represented by: A.-M. Colaert, Agent), Commission of
the
European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and M. van
Heezik, Agents)