You are on page 1of 2

26.9.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 299/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 3. Protocol 3 cannot be interpreted in such a way that a
of 16 July 1998 deportation order made by the Jersey authorities
against a national of a Member State other than the
in Case C-171/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from United Kingdom would have the effect of prohibiting
the Royal Court of Jersey): Rui Alberto Pereira Roque v. that person's entry to and residence in the territory of
His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey (1) the United Kingdom for reasons and considerations
(Free movement of persons Ð Act of Accession of 1972 other than those for which the United Kingdom
Ð Protocol 3 concerning the Channel Islands and the Isle authorities might otherwise restrict the free movement
of Man Ð Jersey) of persons under Community law.
(98/C 299/11)
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.
(Language of the case: English) (2) Official Journal, English Special Edition, 27.3.1972, p. 164.
(3) Official Journal, English Special Edition, 27.3.1972, p. 14.
In Case C-171/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Royal Court of Jersey for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Rui Alberto Pereira Roque and His
Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey, on the
interpretation of Article 4 of Protocol 3 on the Channel JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Islands and the Isle of Man (2) annexed to the Act
(Fifth Chamber)
concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great of 16 July 1998
Britain and Northern Ireland to the European Economic
in Case C-210/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Community and to the European Atomic Energy
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Gut Springenheide GmbH,
Community and the adjustments to the Treaties (3) Ð the
Rudolf Tusky v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt Ð
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
Amt für Lebensmittelüberwachung, Joined party:
C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Presidents
Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (1)
of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. (Marketing standards for eggs Ð Promotional descriptions
Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), or statements liable to mislead the purchaser Ð Reference
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, consumer)
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 July 1998,
(98/C 299/12)
in which it has ruled:

1. the rule on equal treatment set out in Article 4 of (Language of the case: German)
Protocol 3 on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man
annexed to the Act concerning the Conditions of (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and published in the European Court Reports)
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland to the European Economic Community and to
the European Atomic Energy Community and the In Case C-210/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
adjustments to the Treaties does not have the effect of
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
prohibiting the deportation from Jersey of nationals of
a Member State other than the United Kingdom, even pending before that court between Gut Springenheide
GmbH, Rudolf Tusky and Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises
though British citizens, including those who are not
Channel Islanders within the meaning of Article 6 of Steinfurt Ð Amt für Lebensmittelüberwachung, Joined
Protocol 3, are not liable to be deported from Jersey; party: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht,
on the interpretation of Article 10(2)(e) of Council
2. Article 4 of Protocol 3 is not to be interpreted as Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain
limiting the reasons for which a national of a Member marketing standards for eggs (2) Ð the Court (Fifth
State other than the United Kingdom may be deported Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
from Jersey to those justified on grounds of public Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
policy, public security or public health, laid down by D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
Article 48(3) of the EC Treaty and set out in detail by Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,
Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
on the coordination of special measures concerning the judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it has ruled:
movement and residence of foreign nationals which
are justified on grounds of public policy, public in order to determine whether a statement intended to
security or public health. Article 4 of Protocol 3 does, promote sales of eggs is liable to mislead the purchaser, in
however, prohibit the Jersey authorities from making a breach of Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation (EEC) No 1907/
deportation order against a national of another 90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for
Member State by reason of conduct which, when eggs, the national court must take into account the
attributable to citizens of the United Kingdom, does presumed expectations which it evokes in an average
not give rise on the part of the Jersey authorities to consumer who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably
repressive measures or other genuine and effective observant and circumspect. However, Community law
measures intended to combat such conduct; does not preclude the possibility that, where the national
C 299/8 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 26.9.98

court has particular difficulty in assessing the misleading conformity with Community law or to disapply the
nature of the statement or description in question, it may legislation in a situation falling outside the scope of
have recourse, under the conditions laid down by its own Community law.
national law, to a consumer research poll or an expert's
report as guidance for its judgment. (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.

(1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
(2) OJ L 173, 6.7.1990, p. 5.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Fifth Chamber)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 July 1998

of 16 July 1998 in Case C-287/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Kyritzer Stärke GmbH v.
in Case C-264/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Hauptzollamt Potsdam (1)
the House of Lords): Imperial Chemical Industries plc
(ICI) v. Kenneth Hall Colmer (Her Majesty's Inspector of (Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð
Taxes) (1) Production refunds Ð System of securities Ð Time limits
Ð Primary requirement Ð Subordinate requirement)
(Right of establishment Ð Corporation tax Ð Surrender
by one company to another company in the same group of (98/C 299/14)
tax relief on trading losses Ð Residence requirement
imposed on group companies Ð Discrimination according (Language of the case: German)
to the place of the corporate seat Ð Obligations of the
national court)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(98/C 299/13)
published in the European Court Reports)

(Language of the case: English) In Case C-287/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
In Case C-264/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
court between Kyritzer Stärke GmbH and Hauptzollamt
of the EC Treaty from the House of Lords (United
Potsdam, on the interpretation of Commission Regulation
Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
(EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common
pending before that court between Imperial Chemical
detailed rules for the application of the system of
Industries plc (ICI) and Kenneth Hall Colmer (Her
securities for agricultural products (2) in conjunction with
Majesty's Inspector of Taxes), on the interpretation of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1722/93 of 30 June
Articles 5 and 52 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court,
1993 laying down detailed rules for the application of
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, H.
Council Regulations (EEC) No 1766/92 and (EEC)
Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen,
No 1418/76 concerning production refunds in the cereals
Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
and rice sectors respectively (3) Ð the Court (Fifth
Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, L.
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate
Chamber, M. Wathelet, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate
given a judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it has ruled:
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it has ruled:
1. Article 52 of the EC Treaty precludes legislation of a
Member State which, in the case of companies Article 10(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1722/
established in that State belonging to a consortium 93 of 30 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the
through which they control a holding company, by application of Council Regulations (EEC) No 1766/92
means of which they exercise their right to freedom of and (EEC) No 1418/76 concerning production refunds in
establishment in order to set up subsidiaries in other the cereals and rice sectors respectively is to be interpreted
Member States, makes a particular form of tax relief as follows:
subject to the requirement that the holding company's
business consists wholly or mainly in the holding of
shares in subsidiaries that are established in the Ð the use of a product falling within CN code
Member State concerned; 3505 10 50, as prescribed by that provision,
constitutes a primary requirement within the meaning
of Article 20(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
2. in circumstances such as those in point in the main No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common
proceedings, Article 5 of the EC Treaty does not detailed rules for the application of the system of
require the national court to interpret its legislation in securities for agricultural products,