You are on page 1of 2

C 299/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26.9.98

court has particular difficulty in assessing the misleading nature of the statement or description in question, it may have recourse, under the conditions laid down by its own national law, to a consumer research poll or an expert's report as guidance for its judgment.
(1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996. (2) OJ L 173, 6.7.1990, p. 5.

conformity with Community law or to disapply the legislation in a situation falling outside the scope of Community law.
(1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 July 1998 in Case C-264/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords): Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) v. Kenneth Hall Colmer (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) (1) of 16 July 1998 in Case C-287/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Kyritzer Stärke GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Potsdam (1)

(Right of establishment Ð Corporation tax Ð Surrender by one company to another company in the same group of tax relief on trading losses Ð Residence requirement imposed on group companies Ð Discrimination according to the place of the corporate seat Ð Obligations of the national court)
(98/C 299/13) (Language of the case: English) In Case C-264/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the House of Lords (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) and Kenneth Hall Colmer (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes), on the interpretation of Articles 5 and 52 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate 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 established in that State belonging to a consortium through which they control a holding company, by means of which they exercise their right to freedom of establishment in order to set up subsidiaries in other Member States, makes a particular form of tax relief 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 Member State concerned; 2. in circumstances such as those in point in the main proceedings, Article 5 of the EC Treaty does not require the national court to interpret its legislation in

(Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð Production refunds Ð System of securities Ð Time limits Ð Primary requirement Ð Subordinate requirement)
(98/C 299/14) (Language of the case: German) (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports) 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 court between Kyritzer Stärke GmbH and Hauptzollamt Potsdam, on the interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products (2) in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1722/93 of 30 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulations (EEC) No 1766/92 and (EEC) No 1418/76 concerning production refunds in the cereals and rice sectors respectively (3) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of Chamber, M. Wathelet, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate  General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it has ruled: Article 10(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1722/ 93 of 30 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulations (EEC) No 1766/92 and (EEC) No 1418/76 concerning production refunds in the cereals and rice sectors respectively is to be interpreted as follows: Ð the use of a product falling within CN code 3505 10 50, as prescribed by that provision, constitutes a primary requirement within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products,

26.9.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities That presupposes, however:

C 299/9

Ð compliance with that requirement must be proved within the time limits laid down in Article 28 of that Regulation, failing which the whole of the security becomes forfeit pursuant to Article 22(1) and (2) of that Regulation.
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996. (2) OJ L 205, 3.8.1985, p. 5. (3) OJ L 159, 1.7.1993, p. 112.

Ð that the good faith of the recipient has first been established, and Ð that the conditions prescribed are the same as those which apply with respect to the recovery of purely national financial benefits.
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 1998 in Case C-298/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Oelmühle Hamburg AG, Jb. Schmidt Söhne GmbH & Co. KG v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (1) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 July 1998 in Case C-355/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co. KG v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (1)

(Unduly paid Community subsidy Ð Recovery Ð Application of national law Ð Conditions and limits)
(98/C 299/15) (Language of the case: German)

(Directive 89/104/EEC Ð Exhaustion of trade mark Ð Goods put on the market in the Community or in a nonmember country)
(98/C 299/16) (Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports) In Case C-198/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Oelmühle Hamburg AG, Jb. Schmidt Söhne GmbH & Co. KG and Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, on the principles of Community law applicable to measures taken by national authorities for the recovery of an unduly paid Community subsidy Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of Chamber, M. Wathelet, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate General; H. von  Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it has ruled: Community law does not in principle preclude national legislation from allowing recovery of unduly paid Community subsidies to be barred, on the basis of criteria such as loss of the enrichment, where: Ð the recipient of the subsidy had already, at the time when it was granted, passed on the pecuniary advantage resulting from it by paying the producer the target price prescribed by Community law, and Ð any right or recourse against his suppliers is worthless.

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports) In Case 355/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Oberster Gerichtshof for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co. KG and Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, on the interpretation of first Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (2) as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (3) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it has ruled: 1. national rules providing for exhaustion of trade-mark rights in respect of products put on the market outside the EEA under that mark by the proprietor or with its consent are contrary to Article 7(1) of first Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;