CELEX: C2003/019/27
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-414/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the case of Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve. Tic. A.S. Istanbul against Finanzlandesdirektion Oberösterreich

C 19/16                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.1.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-                     new securities issued when a company or investment
ichtshof by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in                         fund is being set up or following the completion of an
the case of Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve.                    increase in capital or during a loan issue,
Tic. A.S. Istanbul against Finanzlandesdirektion Oberös-
                             terreich                                         the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Article 11 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
                        (Case C-414/02)                                       17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                              capital (1);
                         (2003/C 19/27)
                                                                        —     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
of (Administrative Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 19 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling            Pleas in law and main arguments
in the case of Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve.
Tic. A.S. Istanbul against Finanzlandesdirektion Oberösterreich
(Regional Finance Directorate for Upper Austria) on the                 The taxes referred to in the forms of order sought are at
following questions:                                                    variance with Article 11 of the Directive in so far as they are
                                                                        imposed on the delivery to the subscriber and/or the issue of
Does Paragraph 79(2) of the Zollrechtsdurchführungsgesetz               new securities. In those cases, the derogation provided for in
(Act to implement customs law, under which an employer or               Article 12(1)(a) of the Directive, which allows Member States
undertaking incurs liability for a customs debt at the same             to charge duties on the transfer of securities, is not applicable
time as the employee or other person contracted by the                  because such a ‘transfer’ presupposes the existence of a
undertaking incurs liability for the debt, if that person has, in       previous owner of the securities in question.
the discharge of his employer’s or the undertaking’s affairs,
acted unlawfully with regard to customs obligations), widen
the meaning of the term ‘customs debtor’ in a manner that is            (1 ) OJ English Special Edition 1969(II), p. 412.
contrary to Article 202(3) of the Customs Code and therefore
incompatible with Community law?
Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the
                      Kingdom of Belgium                                Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities against the
                        (Case C-415/02)                                                          Hellenic Republic
                         (2003/C 19/28)
                                                                                                  (Case C-417/02)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                                               (2003/C 19/29)
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
19 November 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by R. Lyal and Ch. Giolito, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-
the Court should:                                                       vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties, represented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser in its Legal
—     Rule that:                                                        Service.
      by imposing the ‘tax on stock-exchange transactions’ on
      applications made in Belgium for new securities issued
      when a company or investment fund is being set up or              The Commission claims that the Court should:
      following the completion of an increase in capital or
      during a loan issue;                                              (a)   declare that,
      by imposing the ’tax on the delivery of securities to the
      holder’ on the substantive issue to the holder of securities            —     by enacting and retaining in force Article 3(1)(c) and
      relating to Belgian or foreign public funds, in the case of                   (2) of Presidential Decree 107/93, and