CELEX: C1995/074/14
Language: en
Date: 1995-03-25 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Saint Nazaire, by judgment of that court of 19 December 1994 in the case of Sàrl Polypièces v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Loire-Atlantique (Case C-33/95)

No C 74/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 3 . 95
the future reutilization of such ground residue has not been                     permanently in a single unit from a financial and
established.                                                                     economic point of view ?
(!) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                                  2.5 . Is an exchange of shares which is carried out in
(2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 20 .                                      order to bring about a horizontal setting-off of tax
(3 ) OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                          losses between the participant undertakings
                                                                                 within a fiscal unit as referred to in Article 15 of
                                                                                 the Wet op de Vennootschapsbelasting ( Law on
                                                                                 CorporationTax) 1969 a valid commercial reason
                                                                                 for the exchange for the purposes of Article 1 1 of
                                                                                 the Directive ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam, by judgment of that court of 26 January 1995
in the case of A. Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der
        Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2
                          ( Case C-28/95 )                             Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Société Commerciale
                             95/C 74/12 )                              des Potasses et de l'Azote and by Enterprise Minière et
                                                                       Chimique against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                Communities
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                              ( Case C-30/95 )
European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechtshof
(Regional Court of Appeal ), Amsterdam, of 26 January                                             95/C 74/13 )
1995, which was received at the Court Registry
on 6 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in                      An action originally brought before the Court of First
the case of A. Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der                           Instance by Societe Commerciale des Potasses et de l'Azote
Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2 on the                       and by Enterprise Miniere et Chimique was referred to the
following questions:                                                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       8 February 1995 . The Cour^of First Instance made an order
1 . May questions be referred to the Court of Justice                 declining jurisdiction and transferred the action, originally
     concerning the interpretation of the provisions and              registered as Case T-88/94, to the Court of Justice for a
     scope of a directive of the Council of the European              ruling on the application for annulment.
     Communities even where the directive is not directly
     applicable to the specific circumstances of the case but it      The pleas in law and main arguments were published in a
     is the national legislature's intention that those               notice in Official Journal No C 103 of 11 April 1994,
     circumstances are to be treated in the same manner as a          p. 13 .
     situation to which the directive does apply?
2. If Question 1 above is answered in the affirmative:
     2.1 . Can there Be an exchange of shares within the
           meaning of Article 2 (d ) of Council Directive             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
           90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 if the acquiring                Grande Instance, Saint Nazaire, by judgment of that court
           company within the meaning of Article 2 (h) does           of 19 December 1994 in the case of Sari Polypieces v.
           not itself carry on a business ?                                Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Loire-Atlantique
                                                                                             (Case C-33/95 )
     2.2 . Is an exchange of shares within the meaning of
           Article 2 (d) precluded by the fact that the same                                    ( 95/C 74/14 )
           natural person who was the sole shareholder in,
           and director of, the acquired company before the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           exchange is the director of, and sole shareholder          European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
           in, the acquiring company after the exchange ?             Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Saint Nazaire, of
                                                                      19 December 1994, which was received at the Court
     2.3 . Is there an exchange of shares within the meaning          Registry on 13 February 1995 .
           of Article 2 ( d ) only if its effect is to merge the
           business of the acquiring company and that of
           another permanently in a single unit from a                The Regional Court asks the Court ofJustice to give a ruling
           financial and economic point of view?                      on the following question:
     2.4. Is there an exchange of shares within the meaning           is the present system for taxing motor vehicles under Article
           of Article 2 (d ) only if its effect is to merge the       1599 G of the French General Tax Code compatible with
           businesses of two or more acquired companies               Article 95 of the EEC Treaty, in that it provides for the
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 3 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/9
application of a progressive weighting, not based on any                    Removal from the register of Case C-148/94 (*)
objective criterion, which is greater and increases more                                        ( 95/C 74/15 )
rapidly for the four tax bands from 19 CV (fiscal
horsepower) opwards, which apply only to cars imported
from other Member States, than for the tax bands from 12
to 14 CV, which cover three tax ratings, and the four tax           By order of 12 January 1995 the President pf the Court of
bands from 15 to 18 CV, in which its rate of progression is         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
constant and which apply to French-made cars capable of             from the register of Case C-148/94: Commission of the
being considered similar to imported products of over               European Communities v. Ireland.
19 CV ?
                                                                    f 1 ) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            2 . the remainder of the application, in so far as it is based
                       ( Second Chamber)                                   on Article 1 75 of the Treaty, is dismissed;
                      of 24 January 1995
                                                                    3 . it is not necessary to rule on the application under
in Case T-74/92: Ladbroke Racing (Deutschland ) GmbH v.                    Article 173 of the Treaty in so far as it concerns
        Commission of the European Communities i 1 )                       Article 86 of the Treaty;
 (Competition — Action for failure to act and annulment —
Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty — Investigation of the
                                                                    4 . in so far as the application for annulment concerns
                            complaint)
                                                                           Article 85 of the Treaty it is dismissed as
                            95/C 74/16                                     inadmissible;
                (Language of the case: English)                     5 . the application seeking to have the Court issue
                                                                           directions   to   the    Commission   is  dismissed  as
                                                                           inadmissible;
In Case T-74/92 : Ladbroke Racing ( Deutschland) GmbH,
whose registered office is in Mainz (Germany), represented
by Jeremy Lever QC and Christopher Vajda, Barrister,                6 . the Commission shall pay its own costs and
members of the Bar of England and Wales, and by Stephen                    three-quarters of those of the applicant;
Kon, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Winandy and Err, 60 Avenue Gaston                   7. the intervener shall pay its own costs.
Diderich v. Commission of the European Communities
 (Agents : J. Currall and F. E. Gonzalez-Diaz), supported by
Deutscher Sportverlag Kurt Stoof GmbH & Co.,                        (!) OJ No C 294, 10 . 11 . 1992 .
represented by Klaus-Jiirgen Michaeli and Ute Zinsmeister,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn and Schmitt, 62
Avenue Guillaume — application under the third paragraph
of Article 175 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that the
Commission failed to define its position on the applicant's          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
complaint based on Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty
 (IV/33.375 — Ladbroke GmbH/PMU-PMI-DSV), and                                              of 24 January 1995
alternatively under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for the           in Case T-114/92: Bureau Européen des Médias de
annulment of the Commission's implicit decision to reject           l'Industrie Musicale (BEMIM) v. Commission of the
the complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Second                                    European Communities ( ! )
 Chamber), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vila^a, President, C. P.          (Competition — Copyright — Regulation (EEC) No 17 —
Briet, A. Kalogeropoulos, D. P. M. Barrington and J.                Rejection of a complaint — Obligations concerning the
Biancarelli, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment             investigation of complaints — Community interest)
on 24 January 1995 , in which it declares that:
                                                                                                  95/C 74/17 )
 1 . in breach of the EEC Treaty the Commission has failed
     to define its position on the applicant's complaint (No                          (Language of the case: French)
     IV/33.375 — Ladbroke GmbH/PMU-PMI-DSV) in so
     far as the latter was based on Article 86 of the               In Case T-114/92: Bureau Européen des Médias de
     Treaty;                                                        l'Industrie Musicale ( BEMIM ), established in Paris,