CELEX: C1998/278/19
Language: en
Date: 1998-09-05 00:00:00
Title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 7 July 1998 in Joined Cases C-405/96 to C-408/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance de Saint-Denis de la Réunion): Société Beton Express and Others v. Direction Régionale de la Réunion (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifestly identical question)

5.9.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 278/11
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 Action brought on 7 May 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities against the French Republic
                        of 7 July 1998
                                                                                           (Case C-169/98)
in Joined Cases C-405/96 to C-408/96 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance de Saint-                                   (98/C 278/20)
Denis de la ReÂunion): SocieÂteÂ Beton Express and Others v.
            Direction ReÂgionale de la ReÂunion (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure Ð Manifestly               An action against the French Republic was brought before
                      identical question)                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                     7 May 1998 by the Commission of the European
                        (98/C 278/19)                                Communities, represented by Peter Hillenkamp, Legal
                                                                     Adviser, and HeÂleÁne Michard, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                     as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                (Language of the case: French)                       Kirchberg.
                                                                     The Commission of the European Communities claims
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       that the Court should:
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     Ð declare that, in applying the general social
                                                                         contribution (GSC) to the income from employment or
In Joined Cases C-405/96 to C-408/96: reference to the
                                                                         income substitution benefit of workers who are
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
                                                                         resident in France but who, by virtue of Regulation
Tribunal d'Instance de Saint-Denis de la ReÂunion (France)
                                                                         (EEC) No 1408/71 (1), are not subject to French social
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                         security legislation, France has failed to fulfil its
that court between SocieÂteÂ Beton Express (Case C-405/
                                                                         obligations under Articles 48 to 52 of the EC Treaty
96), SocieÂteÂ Nouvelle de Concassage (Case C-406/96),
                                                                         and Article 13 of that Regulation,
SocieÂteÂ Bourbon LumieÁre (Case C-407/96) and SocieÂteÂ
Ouest Concassage (Case 408/96) and Direction ReÂgionale
des Douanes de la ReÂunion Ð Intervener: ReÂgion ReÂu-
nion, on the interpretation of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the          Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
EC Treaty Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M.
Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, G. F.
Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L.          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Murray, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
A. Saggio, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an            According to the Commission, the levying of the general
order on 7 July 1998, the operative part of which is as              social contribution (hereinafter the GSC') on employees'
follows:                                                             income from employment or income substitution benefit
                                                                     derived from professional activity in another Member
                                                                     State constitutes a twofold social levy contrary both to the
                                                                     provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, and
Council Decision 89/688/EEC of 22 December 1989                      Article 13 thereof in particular, and to Articles 48 to 52 of
concerning the dock dues in the French overseas                      the Treaty concerning freedom of movement for workers
departments must be interpreted as meaning that it                   within the Community.
precludes exemptions which are of a general or systematic
nature and which are therefore liable to lead to the
reintroduction of a tax having an effect equivalent to a
customs duty. On the other hand, Decision 89/688/EEC                 The Commission points out that, according to the
authorises exemptions which are necessary, proportional              consistent case-law of the Court of Justice, the designation
and precisely determined and which fulfil the strict                 of a tax, charge, levy, contribution or fee must be
conditions laid down by Article 2(3) of that Decision, as            examined in the light of the objective characteristics of the
interpreted in the light of the limits provided for in               levy concerned, irrespective of the designation given to it
Article 226 of the EC Treaty.                                        by the Member State in question.
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
                                                                     In this case, account should be taken, first, of the purpose
                                                                     and use made of the levy and, second, of the arrangements
                                                                     for the collection and charging of the contribution in
                                                                     question.