CELEX: C2003/289/22
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-268/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg of the Antwerp judicial district by judgment of that Court of 13 June 2003 in the case of Jean-Claude De Baeck against Belgian State, Ministry of Finance

C 289/12               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                      29.11.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van                      ‘Split transport’ is to be understood as meaning:
Eerste Aanleg of the Antwerp judicial district by judgment
of that Court of 13 June 2003 in the case of Jean-Claude                     The carriage of persons to or from the territory covered
    De Baeck against Belgian State, Ministry of Finance                      by the embargo by means of a joint operation between
                                                                             an undertaking established in a Member State of the
                                                                             Community and an undertaking established in the terri-
                         (Case C-268/03)                                     tory covered by the embargo, the former providing
                                                                             carriage to the vicinity of the border of the territory
                        (2003/C 289/22)                                      covered by the embargo and the latter carriage from there
                                                                             into the territory covered by the embargo (the passengers
                                                                             changing vehicle).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  2.   If the Court of Justice finds that split transport was
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van                        permissible: Was there an obligation under Article 10 or
Eerste Aanleg (First-instance court) of the Antwerp judicial                 Article 297 EC or other provisions of Community law to
district of 13 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on                  consult other Member States and/or the Commission
19 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Jean-                  before taking national measures based on the unlaw-
Claude De Baeck against Belgian State, Ministry of Finance on                fulness of split transport?
the following question:
                                                                        (1) OJ L 151, p. 4.
Do Articles 43, 46, 48, 56 and 58 EC preclude Belgian
legislation, namely Articles 67(8) and 67ter of the WIB64,
pursuant to which the surplus values realised on the occasion
of the transfer for valuable consideration, otherwise than in
the context of the exercise of a business activity, of shares, or
other proof of entitlement to holdings, in Belgian companies,
associations, establishments or institutions are liable to tax
where the transfer is to a foreign company, association,
establishment or institution, even though in the same circum-           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
stances those surplus values are not liable to tax where the            ’s-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that Court of 24 July
transfer is to a Belgian company, association, establishment or         2003 in the case of D against head of the Private
institution?                                                              Individuals/Enterprises/Foreign Countries/Heerlen unit
                                                                                                 (Case C-376/03)
                                                                                                 (2003/C 289/24)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt Köln by order of that Court of 21 August 2003
in the proceedings between Aulinger and The Federal                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                     Republic of Germany                                European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te ’s-
                                                                        Hertogenbosch (Regional Court of Appeal, ’s-Hertogenbosch)
                                                                        of 24 July 2003, received at the Court Registry on 8 September
                         (Case C-371/03)                                2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of D against head of
                                                                        the Private Individuals/Enterprises/Foreign Countries/Heerlen
                        (2003/C 289/23)                                 unit on the following questions:
                                                                        1.   Does Community law, and in particular Article 56 EC et
                                                                             seq., preclude legislation such as that referred to in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       main proceedings, under which a domestic taxpayer is
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                       always entitled to deduction of a tax allowance in respect
Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 21 August 2003,                     of wealth tax, whereas a foreign taxpayer has no such
received at the Court Registry on 1st September 2003, for a                  entitlement in the case where the assets in question are
preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Aulinger and                   situated predominantly in the taxpayer’s State of residence
The Federal Republic of Germany on the following questions:                  (in which no wealth tax is levied)?
1.    Was Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 1432/92 (1) of          2.   If not, does it make a difference in this case that the
      1 June 1992 (the so-called ‘Embargo Regulation’) to be                 Netherlands has, under a bilateral treaty, granted to
      interpreted as meaning that the commercial carriage of                 residents of Belgium, who in all other respects are
      persons to or from the territory covered by the embargo                in comparable circumstances, entitlement to the tax
      involving so-called ‘split’ transport was permitted or                 allowance (where no wealth tax is levied in Belgium
      prohibited?                                                            either)?