CELEX: C2003/289/24
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-376/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that Court of 24 July 2003 in the case of D against head of the Private Individuals/Enterprises/Foreign Countries/Heerlen unit

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)?
 ---pagebreak--- 29.11.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/13
3.    If either of the previous two questions is answered in the         also prevented from evaluating the measures taken by Ireland
      affirmative, does Community law preclude a legal costs             as part of its overall evaluation with a view to proposing,
      scheme such as that in issue, under which, in principle,           as appropriate, Community measures regarding minimum
      only a limited contribution is made towards legal costs            qualification requirements.
      where a citizen is successful in proceedings brought
      before the national courts for breach of Community law
      by a Member State?
                                                                         With regard to Article 17(2) of the Regulation, the Commission
                                                                         considers that Ireland has equally failed in its obligations. It
                                                                         has not defined the minimum qualification requirements
                                                                         for personnel involved in taking all precautionary measures
                                                                         practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl
                                                                         bromide from fumigation installations and operations in which
                                                                         methyl bromide is used. Nor, for that matter, does the
                                                                         Commission have any information indicating that Ireland has
Action brought on 29 September 2003 by the Com-                          taken the necessary precautionary measures.
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                         (1) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 1.
                          (Case C-406/03)
                         (2003/C 289/25)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 September 2003
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by U. Wölker and M. Shotter, acting as agents, with an address           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
for service in Luxembourg.                                               Koblenz by order of that Court of 16 September 2003 in
                                                                         the matter concerning the companies register relating to
                                                                                       SEVIC Systems Aktiengesellschaft
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to provide the reports referred to                                 (Case C-411/03)
      in Articles 16(5), 16(6) and 17(1) of Regulation (EC)
      No. 2037/2000 (1) on substances that deplete the ozone
      layer, and by failing, in accordance with Article 17(2) of                                  (2003/C 289/26)
      the said Regulation, to take all precautionary measures
      practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl
      bromide and to define the minimum qualification require-
      ments for the personnel involved, Ireland has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under Articles 16(5), 16(6), 17(1)
      and 17(2) of the said Regulation;                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Landgericht Koblenz
                                                                         (Regional Court, Koblenz) of 16 September 2003, received at
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                         the Court Registry on 2 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         in the matter concerning the companies register relating to
                                                                         SEVIC Systems Aktiengesellschaft on the following question:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Are Articles 43 and 48 EC to be interpreted as meaning that it
The Commission did not, by the required date of 31 December              is contrary to freedom of establishment for companies if a
                                                                         foreign European company is refused registration of its
2001, receive from Ireland information on the quantities of
                                                                         proposed merger with a German company in the German
ozone depleting substances recovered, reclaimed, recycled and
destroyed. Nor did it receive by that date any of the other              register of companies under paragraphs 16 et seq. of the
detailed information required to be reported to it by virtue of          Umwandlungsgesetz (Law on transformations), on the ground
                                                                         that paragraph 1 (1)(1) of that law provides only for transform-
Articles 16(5), 16(6) and 17(1) of the Regulation. In the
absence of this information, the Commission is concerned that            ation of legal entities established in Germany?
Ireland’s efforts to curb ozone depleting substances may fall
short of what is required by the Regulation, as the Commission
has been deprived of a means of verifying compliance. It is