Case C-129/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 31 March 2008 — C. Cloet and J. Cloet v CVBA Westvlaamse Intercommunale voor Economische Expansie, Huisvestingsbeleid en Technische Bijstand
Date: 2008-03-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Flemish Community, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, industrial plot, interpretation of the law, preferential price, sale

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/17

a preliminary ruling

from the Hof
Reference
for
van Cassatie van België,
lodged on 25 March 2008 —
I. Distillerie Smeets Hasselt NV v 1. Belgische Staat,
2. L.S.C. De Vos, 3. Bollen, Mathay & Co. BVBA, liquidator
of Transterminal Logistics NV, 4. D. Van den Langenbergh
and 5. Firma De Vos NV; II. Belgische Staat v Bollen,
Mathay & Co. BVBA, liquidator of Transterminal Logistics
NV; and III. L.S.C. De Vos v Belgische Staat

(Case C-126/08)

(2008/C 142/25)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
première instance de Liège (Court of First Instance, Liège)
(Belgium) lodged on 28 March 2008 — Jacques Damseaux
v État belge

(Case C-128/08)

(2008/C 142/26)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants:

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jacques Damseaux

Defendant: État belge

I. Distillerie Smeets Hasselt NV

Questions referred

II. Belgische Staat

III. L.S.C. De Vos

Respondents:

I. 1. Belgische Staat

2. L.S.C. De Vos

3. Bollen, Mathay & Co. BVBA, liquidator of Transterminal

Logistics NV

4. D. Van den Langenbergh

5. Firma De Vos NV

II Bollen, Mathay, & Co. BVBA,

liquidator of Transterminal

Logistics NV

III. Belgische Staat

Question referred

Should Articles 217(1) and 221(1) of the Community Customs
Code (CCC) (1) be construed as meaning that the prescribed
entry of a customs debt in the accounts may also be lawfully
effected through the entry of the amount in a record in accord-
ance with the AWDA (2), drawn up by investigating officials and
not by persons authorised to enter such amounts in the
accounts, and that such records may be treated as accounting
records or any other equivalent medium within the terms of
Article 217(1) of the CCC?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-

lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(2) Royal Decree of 18 July 1997 coordinating the general provisions on

customs and excise duties.

1.

‘Must Article 56 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning
that
it prohibits a restriction, arising from the France-
Belgium Convention seeking to avoid double taxation and to
establish mutual administrative and legal rules of assistance
in the field of income tax, which allows partial double taxa-
tion of dividends from shares of companies established in
France to subsist and which renders the taxation of those
dividends more onerous than Belgian withholding tax alone
applied to dividends distributed by a Belgian company to a
Belgian resident shareholder?’

2.

‘Must Article 293 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning
that it renders wrongful Belgium's inaction in not renego-
tiating with France a new way of abolishing double taxation
of dividends
from shares of companies established in
France?’

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank
van eerste aanleg Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 31 March
2008 — C. Cloet and J. Cloet v CVBA Westvlaamse
Intercommunale voor Economische Expansie, Huisvestings-
beleid en Technische Bijstand

(Case C-129/08)

(2008/C 142/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brugge

C 142/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.6.2008

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: C. Cloet and J. Cloet

Defendants: CVBA Westvlaamse Intercommunale voor Econo-
mische Expansie, Huisvestingsbeleid en Technische Bijstand

Questions referred

1. Is a financial advantage granted to NV Metafox by the
Flemish Region/Flemish Community through a decentralised
administrative authority, the WVI, in the form of a preferen-
tial price for the purchase of industrial/commercial land of
1 ha 82 a 72 m2, performed by the WVI for a sum stated in
the sales instrument to be EUR 294 394,14 ‘for tax’
in
respect of a preferential price in reality of EUR 91 720,60,
compatible with the common market, given that the cost
price of purchasing such industrial/commercial
land under
normal circumstances, applying average values for such land
at that place, is EUR 1 007 926,40?

Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets
instruments (1), or in any event by failing to
in financial
inform the Commission of the adoption of such measures,
its obligations
the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil
arising under that directive;

— order

the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of

the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2004/39/EC expired on
31 January 2007.

(1) OJ L 145, 30.4.2004, p. 1-44.

of

EUR

does

2. Through such expropriation and subsequent sale to NV
Metafox (specifically the preferential price paid by NV
Metafox
Flemish
91 720,60)
Region/Flemish Community, through the WVI, not indirectly
benefit the favoured undertaking, NV Metafox, by directly
conferring an economic advantage on it (namely the differ-
ence between the price paid and the ‘for tax’ sale price stated
in the sales instrument), since the favoured undertaking, NV
Metafox, could not have acquired this land under normal
market conditions (EUR 1 007 926,40) or at the ‘for tax’
sale price (EUR 294 394,14)?

the

Action brought on 7 April 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-143/08)

(2008/C 142/29)

Language of the case: Polish

Consequently, can such a measure of the WVI (specifically
the sale of industrial land for the preferential price actually
paid) be classified as a financial advantage that is contrary to
Article 87(1) EC?

Parties

Action brought on 7 April 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-142/08)

(2008/C 142/28)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Kaduczak and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
the purpose of
administrative provisions necessary for
to Commission Directive 2006/73/EC (1) of
giving effect
10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council, or in any event by
failing to inform the Commission of the adoption of such
measures, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations arising under that directive;

— order

the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of

the

proceedings.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Kaduczak and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The period for transposing Directive 2006/73/EC expired on
31 January 2007.

(1) OJ L 241 of 2.9.2006, p. 26-58.

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
the purpose of
the European

administrative provisions necessary for
giving effect

to Directive 2004/39/EC of