CELEX: C2000/233/07
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 16 May 2000 in Case C-87/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif, Luxembourg): Patrick Zurstrassen v Administration des Contributions Directes (Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) — Equal treatment — Income tax — Separate residence of spouses — Joint assessment to tax for married couples)

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.