CELEX: C1996/133/05
Language: en
Date: 1996-05-04 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 13 February 1996 in Joined Cases C-197/94 and C-252/94 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Dax, and the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Quimper): Société Bautiaa v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux des Landes and Société Française Maritime v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Finistère (Article 7 (1) of Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Capital duty - Mergers between companies - Exemption)

4 . S. 96             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 133/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 13 February 1996                                                       of 13 February 1996
 in Case C-342/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from            in Joined Cases C-l 97/94 and C-252/94 ( references for a
 the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland ): Joan Gillespie and         preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance,
 Others v . Northern Health and Social Services Board and              Dax, and the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Quimper ):
                              Others ( 1 )                             Société Bautiaa v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux des Landes
  (Equal treatment for men and women — Maternity pay)                  and Société Française Maritime v. Directeur des Services
                                                                                              Fiscaux du Finistère (')
                           ( 96/C 133 /04 )
                                                                       (Article 7 (1) ofDirective 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on
                                                                       the raising of capital — Capital duty — Mergers between
                                                                                           companies — Exemption)
                (Language of tbe case: English)                                                    ( 96/C 133/05 )
In Case C-342/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Court of Appeal in Northern                                  (Language of the case: French)
Ireland for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Joan Gillespie and Others and
Northern Health and Social Services Board, Department of
Health and Social Services, Eastern Health and Social
Services Board and Southern Health and Social Services                 (Provisional translation : the definitive translation will be
Board on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty,                     published in the European Court Reports)
Council Directive 75/ 117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
the application of the principle of equal pay for men and
women ( OJ No L 45 , 1975 , p . 19 ) and Council Directive
76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of                 In Joined Cases C- 1 97/94 and C-252/94 : references to the
the principle of equal treatment for men and women as                  Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de
regards access to employment, vocational training and                  Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Dax ( France ), and the
promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No L 39 , 1976 ,                Tribunal de Grande Instance Quimper ( France ), for a
p . 40 ), the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias ,            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before those
                                                                       courts between Société Bautiaa and Directeur des Services
President, D. A. O. Edward , J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
( Rapporteur ), ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini ,            Fiscaux des Landes and between Société Française Maritime
F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G.               and Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Finistère, on the
Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray and P. Jann, Judges;                 interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
P. Léger, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for            1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital ( OJ,
the Registrar, has given a judgment in which it rules :                English Special Edition 1 969 ( II ), p . 412 ), as amended by
                                                                       Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 varying the
                                                                       field of application of the reduced rate of capital duty
                                                                       provided for in respect of certain company reconstruction
The principle of equal pay laid down in Article 119 of the             operations by Article 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the Directive concerning
EC Treaty and set out in detail in Council Directive                   indirect taxes on the raising of capital ( OJ No L 103 , 1973 ,
75/1 1 7/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of               p . 13 ), by Council Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973
the laws of the Member States relating to the application of           fixing common rates of capital duty ( OJ No L 103 , 1973 ,
the principle of equal pay for men and women neither                   p . 15 ), by Council Directive 74/553/EEC of 7 November
requires that women should continue to receive full pay                1974 amending Article 5 ( 2 ) of Directive 1135/EEC ( OJ No
during maternity leave, nor lays down specific criteria for            L 303 , 1974 , p . 9 ), and by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of
determining the amount of benefit payable to them during               10 June 1985 ( OJ No L 156 , 1985 , p . 23 ) — the Court,
that period, provided that the amount is not set so low as to          composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
jeopardize the purpose of maternity leave. Elowever, to the            C. N. Kakouris, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch , Presidents of
extent that it is calculated on the basis of pay received by a         Chambers, G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
woman before the commencement of maternity leave, the                  Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, P. Jann,
amount of benefit must include pay rises awarded between               H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevôn, Judges;
the beginning of the period covered by reference pay and the           G. Cosmas, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy
end of maternity leave, as from the date on which they take            Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
effect.                                                                13 February 1996 in which it rules :
C ) OJ No C 215 , 10 . 8 . 1 993 .
                                                                      Article 7 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
                                                                       1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as
                                                                      amended, with effect from 1 January 1976, by Council
                                                                       Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 fixing common rates
 ---pagebreak--- No C 133 /4           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4 . 5 . 96
of capital duty and subsequently, with effect from 1 January               producers who had adopted milk production
1986, by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985,                     development plans under Council Directive
precludes the application of national laws maintaining at                  72/1 59/EEC of 17 April 1972 on the modernization of
1,20% the rate of registration duty on contributions of                    farms.
movable property made in the context of a merger.
                                                                      2 . No requirement flowing from the protection afforded
(>) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                          by general principles of law, such as the protection
    OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                          of legitimate expectations, the prohibition of
                                                                           discrimination, proportionality and legal certainty, or
                                                                           by fundamental rights, such as the right to property and
                                                                           the freedom to pursue a trade or profession, imposes on
                                                                           the competent national authority any obligation, under
                                                                           the first indent of Article 3 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                           No 857/84, to grant special reference quantities to
                                                                           producers who have adopted development plans, even
                                                                           where those plans had been approved by the competent
                                                                           authorities .
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                      3 . Consideration of the abovementioned general principles
                       ( Sixth Chamber )                                   and fundamental rights has not disclosed any factor of
                    of 15 February 1996                                    such a nature as to affect the validity ofthe first indent of
                                                                           Article 3 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84.
in Case C-63/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Supreme Court of Ireland ): Fintan Duff and Others v.
Minister for Agriculture and Food, and the Attorney                   (*) OJ No C 112 , 22 . 4 . 1993 .
                             General ( 1 )
(Additional levy on milk — Special reference quantities on
account of a development plan — Obligation or
                    discretionary power)
                          ( 96/C 133/06 )
               (Language of the case: English)                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                              ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                           of 15 February 1996
In Case C-63/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of         in Case C-209/94 P: Buralux SA, Satrod SA and Ourry SA
the EC Treaty from the Supreme Court of Ireland for a                             v. Council of the European Union (^
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                              (Appeal — Transfer of waste)
court between Fintan Duff and Others and Minister for
Agriculture and Food, and the Attorney General — on the                                         ( 96/C 133/07 )
interpretation and validity of the first indent of Article 3(1 )
of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984
adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred                       (Language of the case: French)
to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk
and milk products sector ( OJ No L 90, 1984, p . 13 ) — the
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris,                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), G. F.                       published in the European Court Reports)
Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges;
G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 February                In Case C-209/94 P: Buralux SA, Satrod SA and Ourry SA
1996 , in which it rules :                                            ( represented by Pierrot Schiltz, Jean-Claude Fourgoux and
                                                                      Christian Huglo ) — appeal against the order of the Court of
                                                                      First Instance of 17 May 1994 in Case T-475/93 Buralux
                                                                      SA, Satrod SA and Ourry SA v. Council ( not published in the
1 . The first indent of Article 3 (1 ) of Council Regulation          ECR ), seeking to have that order set aside,. the other party to
    (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general                 the proceedings being the Council of the European Union
    rules for the application of the levy referred to in              ( Agents : Arthur Alan Dashwood and Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen )
    Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk              — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris,
    and milk products sector, read in the light of the third          President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini , F. A.
    recital in the preamble to that Regulation, is to be              Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Judges;
    construed as not imposing on Member States an                     C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass , Registrar, has
    obligation to grant a special reference quantity to               given a judgment on 15 February 1996 , in which it: