CELEX: C2000/372/12
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-395/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale de Trento — Sezione Civile by order of that court of 20 October 2000 in the case of Distillerie F.lli Cipriani SpA against Ministero delle Finanze

C 372/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       23.12.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                    Is it compatible with Article 4 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC
Nederlanden by judgment of 18 October 2000 in the case                     concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (1) to subject
of F. W. L. de Groot v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst                   to capital duty the grant of an interest-free loan by a
         Particulieren/Ondernemingen te Haarlem                            shareholder to his company, if at the time of granting the loan
                                                                           there existed a profit and loss transfer agreement between the
                         (Case C-385/00)                                   company and the shareholder?
                         (2000/C 372/10)                                   (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 18 Octo-
ber 2000, received at the Court Registry on 20 October 2000,
in the case of F. W. L. de Groot v Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen te Haarlem (Tax
Inspector for Individuals and Undertakings, Haarlem) on the
following questions:                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale de
                                                                           Trento — Sezione Civile by order of that court of
1.   Do Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                 20 October 2000 in the case of Distillerie F.lli Cipriani
     Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC)                                    SpA against Ministero delle Finanze
     No 1612/68 (1) of the Council preclude a system for the
     avoidance of double taxation under which a resident of a                                        (Case C-395/00)
     Member State, who in a given year (also) derives income
     in another Member State from an employment exercised
     there, on which he is taxed in that other Member State                                          (2000/C 372/12)
     without account being taken of that employee’s personal
     and family circumstances, loses in his State of residence a           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     proportional part of the advantage of his tax-free allow-             European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Trento —
     ance and personal tax concessions?                                    Sezione Civile (District Court, Trento — Civil Section) of
                                                                           20 October 2000, received at the Court Registry on 26 October
2.   If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, do specific             2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Distillerie. F.lli
     requirements then arise from Community law with                       Cipriani SpA against Ministero delle Finanze (Ministry of
     regard to the manner in which the personal and family                 Finance) on the following questions:
     circumstances of the employee concerned must be taken
     into account in his State of residence?                               1.     Where products destined for export via one or more
                                                                                  Member States are moved under the suspension arrange-
(1) OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.                                 ment defined in Article 4(c) of Council Directive
                                                                                  92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 (1) but fail to reach their
                                                                                  destination, and it is impossible to ascertain where the
                                                                                  irregularity occurred or where the offence took place, is
                                                                                  Article 20(3) of that directive to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                                  that the Member State of departure may collect the excise
                                                                                  duties only if the party that has guaranteed payment has
                                                                                  been promptly put in a position to ascertain that there
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-                             has been no discharge from the suspension arrangement,
nanzhof by order of that court of 9 August 2000 in                                in such a way as to enable that party to provide, within
the case of Finanzamt Hannover-Nord v Norddeutsche                                the four-month period following the date of dispatch of
Gesellschaft zur Beratung und Durchführung von Entsor-                            the products, satisfactory evidence of the correctness of
         gungsaufgaben bei Kernkraftwerken mbH                                    the operation or of the place where the irregularity in fact
                                                                                  occurred or where the offence was in fact committed?
                         (Case C-392/00)
                                                                           2.     In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative,
                                                                                  does the same interpretation also hold good, in the same
                         (2000/C 372/11)                                          circumstances, where the Member State of departure is
                                                                                  also the Member State where the offence was committed
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            or where the irregularity occurred, or, in such a case, does
European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof                           the presumption set out in Article 20(2) of Directive
(Federal Finance Court), Germany, of 9 August 2000, which                         92/12/EEC apply? If that presumption applies, may
was received at the Court Registry on 25 October 2000, for a                      evidence be furnished of the correctness of the operation
preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt Hannover-Nord v                       or of the place where the irregularity in fact occurred or
Norddeutsche Gesellschaft zur Beratung und Durchführung                           where the offence was in fact committed, and is such
von Entsorgungsaufgaben bei Kernkraftwerken mbH on the                            evidence subject to the time-limit laid down in
following question:                                                               Article 20(3)?
 ---pagebreak--- 23.12.2000            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 372/7
3.   In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative,          2.     May the expression ‘pre-arranged’ which appears in the
     is Article 20(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC to be interpreted,                directive be interpreted as referring to the moment when
     in the same circumstances, as meaning that a party that                   the contract is entered into between the agency and the
     has guaranteed payment of excise duty and has not been                    customer?
     promptly put in a position to ascertain that there has
     been no discharge from the suspension arrangement is
     entitled to furnish evidence of the correctness of the             (1) Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel,
     operation or of the place where the irregularity in fact                package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).
     occurred or where the offence was in fact committed
     even after the expiry of the four-month period following
     the date of dispatch of the products?
(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
                                                                        Tribunal, Stratford (United Kingdom), by order of that
                                                                        court of 10 October 2000, in the case of Mrs F. Harding
                                                                                    against Skandia Asset Management Ltd
                                                                                                  (Case C-402/00)
                                                                                                  (2000/C 372/14)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Employment
                                                                        Tribunal, Stratford (United Kingdom) of 10 October 2000,
                                                                        which was received at the Court Registry on 31 October 2000,
                                                                        for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs F. Harding against
                                                                        Skandia Asset Management Ltd, on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 8a Vara Cı́vel
da Comarca do Porto, 3a Secção, by order of that court of
31 October 2000 in the case of Club-Tour, Viagens e                     Is Article 141 of the EC Treaty directly applicable so that it
Turismo, SA, against Alberto Carlos Lobo Gonçalves                      can be relied upon by an applicant in national proceedings to
         Garrido; intervener: Club Med Viagens Lda                      disapply such territorial limitation as is contained in sec-
                                                                        tion 1(6) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 to enable her to compare
                                                                        her pay with that of men employed by an employer associated
                                                                        with her employer at an establishment in another member
                        (Case C-400/00)                                 State who are performing equal work or work of equal value?
                        (2000/C 372/13)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber
European Communities by order of the 8a Vara Cı́vel da                  of the Consiglio di Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, by
Comarca do Porto, 3a Secção (8th Civil District of the Oporto          order of that court of 14 July 2000 in the case of
Local Court, Third Chamber), of 31 October 2000, which was              Coopsette Scrl, on the one hand, and ANAS and Impresa
received at the Court Registry on 3 November 2000, for a                            Mambrini Costruzioni srl, on the other
preliminary ruling in the case of Club-Tour, Viagens e Turismo,
SA, against Alberto Carlos Lobo Gonçalves Garrido; intervener:                                    (Case C-405/00)
Club Med Viagens Lda on the following questions:
                                                                                                  (2000/C 372/15)
1.   Does a package organised by the agency, at the request
     and on the initiative of the consumer or a strictly defined        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     group of consumers in accordance with their wishes,                European Communities by order of 14 July 2000 of the Fourth
     including transport and accommodation through a tour-              Chamber of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State), sitting in
     ism undertaking, at an inclusive price, for a period of            its judicial capacity, received at the Court Registry on 6 Novem-
     more than twenty-four hours or including overnight                 ber 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Coopsette
     accommodation, fall within the scope of the concept of             Scrl, on the one hand, and ANAS and Impresa Mambrini
     ‘package travel’ as defined in Article 2(1) (1)?                   Costruzioni srl, on the other, on the following questions: