CELEX: C1997/009/03
Language: en
Date: 1997-01-11 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 in Joined Cases C-329/93, C-62/95 and C-63/95: Federal Republic of Germany and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Guarantee given by the public authorities in favour indirectly of a shipbuilding undertaking for the acquisition of an undertaking in another sector - Diversification of the activities of the recipient undertaking - Recovery)

No C 9/2             I EN 1                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11 . 1 . 97
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                Industrie-Beteiligungen GmbH (represented by Gerhard
17 October 1996, the operative part of which is as                       Wiedemann ) and Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG ( represented
follows :                                                                by Hans-Jürgen Rabe ) v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities ( Agents : Ben Smulders and Jürgen
1 . A Member State may not make grant of the tax                         Grunwald ) — application for annulment of Commission
     advantage provided for in Article 5 (1 ) of Council                 Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April 1993 concerning aid
     Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common                  awarded by the German Government to Hibeg and by
     system of taxation applicable in the case of parent                 Hibeg via Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG,
     companies and subsidiaries of different Member States               facilitating the sale of Krupp Atlas Elektronik GmbH from
     subject to the condition that, at the moment when                   Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG (2 ) — the Court
     profits are distributed, the parent company must have               ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
     held a minimum of 25 % of the capital of the                        of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur) and P. J. G.
     subsidiary for a period at least equal to that set by               Kapteyn, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. A.
     that Member State pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the                  Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
     Directive. It is for the Member States to draw up rules             a judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it:
     for ensuring compliance with this minimum period, in
     accordance with the procedures laid down in their
     domestic law. Those States are not obliged under the                1 . Annuls Commission Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April
     Directive to grant the advantage immediately, on the                      1993 concerning aid awarded by the German
     basis of a unilateral undertaking by the parent                           Government to Hibeg and by Hibeg via Krupp GmbH
     company to observe the minimum holding period.                           to Bremer Vulkan AG, facilitating the sale of Krupp
                                                                              Atlas Elektronik GmbH from Krupp GmbH to
2 . Where a Member State has exercised the option                              Bremer Vulkan AG;
     provided for in Article 3 (2) of the Directive, parent
     companies may rely directly on the rights conferred by
     Article 5 (1 ) and (3) of the Directive before national
                                                                         2 . Orders the Commission of the European Communities
     courts, if those companies observe the holding period
                                                                               to pay the costs.
     set by that Member State.
3 . Community law does not require a Member State                        (M OJ No C 222, 18 . 8 . 1993 , p . 8 and OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 .
     which, when transposing the Directive, stipulated that                   1995 , p. 9 .
     the minimum holding period set pursuant to                          (2 ) OJ No L 185 , 28 . 7 . 1993 , p . 43 .
     Article 3 (2) must be completed at the time when the
     profits that are the subject of the tax advantage
     afforded by Article 5 are distributed to compensate
     the parent company for damage which it may have
     incurred by reason of the error thus made.
0 ) OJ No C 351 , 10. 12 . 1994 , pp . 8 and 10 .                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(2 ) OJ No L 225 , 20 . 8 . 1990, p . 6 .
                                                                                                    (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                                 of 24 October 1996
                                                                         in Case C-435/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                         the Rotterdam Kantongerecht): Francina Johanna Maria
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                Dietz v. Stichting Thuiszorg Rotterdam (' )
                           ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                          (Equal pay for men and women — Right to join an
                        of 24 October 1996
                                                                         occupational pension scheme — Right to payment of a
in Joined Cases C-329/93 , C-62/95 and C-63/95 : Federal                             retirement pension — Part-time workers)
Republic of Germany and Others v. Commission of the
                   European Communities 0 )                                                            ( 97/C 9/04 )
(State aid — Guarantee given by the public authorities in
favour indirectly of a shipbuilding undertaking for the                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
acquisition of an undertaking in another sector —
Diversification of the activities of the recipient
                    undertaking — Recovery)
                               ( 97/C 9/03 )
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                    published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           In Case C-435/93 : reference to the Court pursuant to
          published in the European Court Reports)                       Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Rotterdam
                                                                         Kantongerecht ( Cantonal Court) (Netherlands ), for a
In Joined Cases C-329/93, C-62/95 and C-63/95 : Federal                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Republic of Germany ( Agent: Ernst Röder ), Hanseatische                 court between Francina Johanna Maria Dietz and