CELEX: C2000/233/08
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 May 2000 in Case C-107/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Grasse): criminal proceedings against Max Rombi and Arkopharma SA, the party liable at civil law (Food supplements — Directive 89/398/EEC — Transposition — Conditions — Retention of previous national legislation — Additive — L-Carnitine)

C 233/4                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             12.8.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           of 16 May 2000                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-87/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                                      of 18 May 2000
the Tribunal Administratif, Luxembourg): Patrick
Zurstrassen v Administration des Contributions Direc-
                                                                           in Case C-107/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                tes (1)                                    from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Grasse): criminal
(Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Artic-                 proceedings against Max Rombi and Arkopharma SA, the
le 39 EC) — Equal treatment — Income tax — Separate                                             party liable at civil law (1)
residence of spouses — Joint assessment to tax for married
                                                                           (Food supplements — Directive 89/398/EEC — Transposi-
                               couples)                                    tion — Conditions — Retention of previous national legisla-
                                                                                            tion — Additive — L-Carnitine)
                           (2000/C 233/07)                                                            (2000/C 233/08)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          (Language of the case: French)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-87/99, reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunal Admi-                                       in the European Court Reports)
nistratif (Administrative Court), Luxembourg, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between:
Patrick Zurstrassen and Administration des Contributions                   In Case C-107/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Directes — on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal
(now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and Article 1 of                     de Grande Instance (Regional Court), Grasse, France, for a
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October                   preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before
1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the                         that court against Max Rombi and Arkopharma SA, the party
Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) —                liable at civil law, and as third parties the Union Fédérale des
the Court, composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President                Consommateurs ‘Que choisir’ and the Organisation Générale
of the Third and Sixth Chambers, acting for the President,                 des Consommateurs (Orgeco) Union Départementale 06 —
D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presidents of                   on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/398/EEC of
Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, G. Hirsch, H. Ragne-                 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
malm, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and F. Macken,                  States relating to foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; D. Louter-               uses (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 27) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second Chamber,
                                                                           acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch
                                                                           (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advoca-
given a judgment on 16 May 2000, in which it ruled:                        te General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(2)        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 May 2000, in which
EC) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the                 it has ruled:
Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
within the Community preclude the application of national rules
under which, as regards income tax, the joint assessment to tax of         1.    Article 1(2) of Directive 89/398/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the
spouses who are not separated either de facto or by virtue of a judicial         approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
decision is conditional on their both being resident on national                 foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses must be
territory and that tax advantage is denied to a worker who is resident           interpreted as meaning that food supplements such as those at
in that State, where he/she receives almost the entire income of the             issue in the main proceedings, which contain L-carnitine in
                                                                                 high doses and which are marketed on the basis that they are
household, and whose spouse is resident in another Member State.                 suitable for a particular nutritional purpose, fall within the
                                                                                 scope of the Directive unless the national court establishes that
                                                                                 they are not suitable for the nutritional purposes that the
                                                                                 manufacturer claims they are or that they do not fulfil the
                                                                                 particular nutritional requirements of one of the categories of
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                                        persons referred to in Article 1(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Directive.
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 233/5
2.    As Community law presently stands, Directive 89/398/EEC               munities (Agent: H. van Vliet) — Application for the partial
      and the directives adopted pursuant to it do not prevent Member       annulment of Commission Decision 97/333/EC of 23 April
      States from maintaining in force after the transposition of           1997 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
      Directive 89/398/EEC prior national legislative provisions            Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1993 on the
      such as those at issue in the main proceedings which apply to         Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
      additives authorised in the manufacture of foodstuffs intended        Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1997 L 139, p. 30), in so far as
      for particular nutritional uses, even if those provisions are         it disallows, in respect of the applicant, Community financing
      based on a classification other than that used in Directive           for the sum of BEF 413 309 611 by way of expenditure
      89/398/EEC.                                                           incurred for the advance payment of export refunds — the
                                                                            Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of R. Schintgen, President of
3.    In the absence of any provision in Directive 89/398/EEC itself,       the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
      or in the directives adopted pursuant to Article 4 of the             Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm, and
      Directive, as to the composition of foodstuffs intended for           V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber,
      particular nutritional uses or the use of additives or substances     H. von Holstein, Deputy Administrator, for the Registrar, has
      for specific nutritional purposes in the manufacture of that type     given a judgment on 18 May 2000, in which it:
      of product, no relevant Community rules exist, as Community
      law presently stands, on which individuals may rely in order to       1.    dismisses the application;
      challenge national rules on additives and substances for
      nutritional purposes authorised in the manufacture of foodstuffs      2.    orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
      of the kind at issue in the main proceedings.
4.    Member States are subject, in their monitoring of the composi-        (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
      tion of foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses and,
      in particular, of additives and substances for nutritional
      purposes used in their manufacture, to the requirements flowing
      from general principles recognised by Community law, and,
      in particular, the principle of the protection of legitimate
      expectations. However, in the main proceedings the relevant
      Community rules could not give rise to a legitimate expectation
      on the part of Arkopharma on which it could reasonably rely.
      It is for the national court to decide whether the rules on the                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      free movement of goods within the Community have any
      application to an activity such as that at issue in the main                                    (Sixth Chamber)
      proceedings.
                                                                                                       of 18 May 2000
(1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
                                                                            in Case C-206/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                              ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a State to fulfil its obligations — Directive
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      92/49/EEC — Direct insurance other than life assurance)
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                             (2000/C 233/10)
                            of 18 May 2000
                                                                                                 (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-242/97: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of
                   the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993 — Cereals, beef                                           in the European Court Reports)
                                and veal)
                                                                            In Case C-206/98: Commission of the European Communities
                            (2000/C 233/09)                                 (Agents: C. Tufvesson and B. Mongin) v Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                            (Agents: J. Devadder and A. Snoecx, assisted by D. Waelbroeck)
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                         — application for a declaration that, by adopting and maintai-
                                                                            ning in force Article 2 of the Law of 9 July 1975 on the control
                                                                            of insurance undertakings, as amended by the Royal Decree of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      12 August 1994 (Moniteur Belge of 16 September 1994, p.
                     in the European Court Reports)                         23525), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June
In Case C-242/97: Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder,                   1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administra-
assisted by H. Gilliams) v Commission of the European Com-                  tive provisions relating to direct insurance other than life