CELEX: C2000/372/11
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-392/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 9 August 2000 in the case of Finanzamt Hannover-Nord v Norddeutsche Gesellschaft zur Beratung und Durchführung von Entsorgungsaufgaben bei Kernkraftwerken mbH

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)?