You are on page 1of 2

8.7.

2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 192/5

’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the
proceedings pending before that court between C. Baars and competent authorities of the Member States in the field of
Inspecteur der Belastingen Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gor- direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15) — the Court (First
inchem — on the interpretation of Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber,
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 43 EC) and P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advo-
Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC cate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
and 58 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000, in which it
D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, has ruled:
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Adminis- Article 4(1) (a) of Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of
2000, in which it has ruled: the Member States in the field of direct taxation must be interpreted
as follows:
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
precludes a Member State’s tax legislation, such as that at issue in — it is not necessary for the loss of tax referred to therein to be
the main proceedings, which, in circumstances where a holding in the covered by an express measure on the part of the competent
capital of a company confers on the shareholder a definite influence authority of another Member State.
over the company’s decisions and allows him to determine its
activities, — the expression a loss of tax refers to an unjustified saving in tax
in another Member State.
— allows nationals of Member States resident on its territory an
exemption, in whole or in part, from wealth tax in respect of the
assets invested in shares in the company, (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.

— but makes that exemption subject to the condition that the
holding be held in a company established in the Member State
concerned, thus denying it to holders of shares in companies
established in other Member States.

(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 13 April 2000

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT in Case C-123/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(First Chamber)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-
of 13 April 2000 transposition of Directive 94/62/EC)

in Case C-420/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from (2000/C 192/10)
the Nederlandse Raad van State): W. N. v Staatssecretaris
van Financiën (1)
(Language of the case: Greek)
(Harmonisation of laws — Directive 77/799/EEC — Mutual
assistance by the authorities of the Member States in
the field of direct taxation — Spontaneous exchange of (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
information) in the European Court Reports)

(2000/C 192/09) In Case C-123/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
(Language of the case: Dutch) N. Dafniou and D. Tsagkaraki) application for a declaration
that, by failing to inform the Commission of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published with European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
in the European Court Reports) 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ
1994 L 365, p. 10), or failing to adopt the necessary measures
In Case C-420/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of to comply therewith, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nederlandse its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive —
Raad van State (Netherlands Council of State) for a preliminary the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and F. Macken
W. N. and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — on the interpret- (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
ation of Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 77/799/EEC Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000, in which it:
C 192/6 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8.7.2000

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and of registering the sign with a clarifying disclaimer (dis-
administrative provisions necessary to comply with European claiming any exclusive right in the words ‘company’ and
Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December ‘line’).
1994 on packaging and packaging waste within the prescribed
period, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations There is nothing in the contested decisions to indicate that
under that directive; any consideration was given to the rectification provision
contained in Article 12(b) of Regulation No 40/94. In the
2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. case of the sign ‘Companyline’, this may explain the reason
why the grounds of exclusion laid down in Article 7(1)(b)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999. and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 were assessed in accord-
ance with excessively stringent criteria.
The Court of First Instance wrongly omitted to have regard
to the defendant’s failure, contrary to Article 38(2) and (3)
of Regulation No 40/94, Rule 11(2) of the implementing
Appeal brought on 20 March 2000 by DKV Deutsche regulation and point 8.13.2 of the examination guidelines,
Krankenversicherung AG against the judgment delivered to bring pressure to bear for the inclusion of a disclaimer.
on 12 January 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court In reaching its decision concerning the grounds of
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case exclusion set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 40/94,
T-19/99 between DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung the Court of First Instance wrongly omitted to have regard,
AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal in addition, to the registration practice followed in all the
Market (trade marks and designs) Member states of the Community.
(Case C-104/00 P) — Infringement of substantive law and misuse of discretion-
ary powers: the applicant considers that the contradictions
(2000/C 192/11) and omissions on the part of the defendant clearly and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 January 2000 objectively show that the decisive aim of the contested
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of decision was to refuse registration of the sign ‘Company-
the European Communities in Case T-19/99 between DKV line’ under any circumstances, in disregard of the legal
Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG and the Office for Harmon- situation and of the defendant’s duty to promote harmonis-
isation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) ation. The purely formal argument as to the co-existence
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European of Community trade mark law in tandem with the national
Communities on 20 March 2000 by DKV Deutsche Kranken- trade mark laws of the Member States is unconvincing,
versicherung AG, represented by Stephan von Petersdorff- since the Office for Harmonisation reached its decision
Campen, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs von Rospatt, von der without any objective determination of the facts, particu-
Osten, Pross, of Kaiser-Friedrich-Ring 56, D-40547 Düsseldorf, larly as regards the decision-making practice followed in
assisted by Alfred Maxton, patent attorney, of Messrs Maxton the United Kingdom, and failed to weigh up and reconcile
& Langmaack, of Goltsteinstrasse 93, D-50968 Cologne, with the interests involved in such a way as to fulfil its obligation
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc to ensure co-existence.
Loesch, of Messrs De Bandt, van Heckel, Lagae & Loesch,
11 Rue Goethe, L-1011 Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:
— set aside the contested decisions; Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of
Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
ties
Pleas in law and main arguments (Case C-114/00)
— Infringement of substantive law, in particular Arti-
cle 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94: excessively (2000/C 192/12)
stringent criteria were applied in assessing the eligibility
for registration of the sign ‘Companyline’. Instead of An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
assessing the overall impression produced by the sign ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
‘Companyline’, the contested decisions merely considered, Communities on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
in isolation, the component words ‘company’ and ‘line’ represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado,
together making up the composite sign. The numerous acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
possible meanings said to attach to the words by way the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
of association are not apparent. Having regard to the
The applicant claims that the Court should:
registration practice followed in the Member States of the
Community (including English-speaking Member States) 1) annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999
and the defendant’s decision-making practice in relation to concerning aid to finance operating capital in the agricul-
comparable signs, registration of the sign ‘Companyline’ tural sector in Extremadura;
should not have been refused under Article 7(1)(b) of
Regulation No 40/94. No use was made of the possibility 2) order the defendant institution to pay the costs.