Traduction de «Impôt sur les actes juridiques » (Français → Anglais) :

Is Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, (1) as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the fees received by a notary employed as a civil servant for the drawing up of a notarially attested act recording a transaction concerning the conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company constitute taxes for the purposes of that Directive, even if the conversion does not lead to an increase in the capital of the acquiring or transforming company?

Consequently, the Commission cannot accept the argument that several different legal instruments (partial contribution of assets and liabilities, then share deal) are equivalent to a given legal instrument (sale of assets) since one of the legal instruments actually implemented is the negation of the legal instrument sought.

2. Observes that, pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive, the majority of Member States have a procedure for giving the mediation settlement agreement the same authority as a judicial decision; notes that this is achieved either by submitting it to the court or by having the agreement notarised, and that it appears that some national legislatures have opted for the former solution, while, by contrast, in many Member States notarisation is also an available option under national law: for instance, whereas in Greece and Slovenia the law provides that a mediation agreement record may be enforced by the courts, in the Netherlands and in Germany agreements can be rendered enforceable as notarial acts ...[+++], and in other Member States, including Austria, they can, as the law currently stands, be rendered enforceable as notarial acts despite the lack of any explicit provision to that effect in the relevant national legislation; calls on the Commission to ensure that all Member States that do not yet comply with Article 6 of the Directive do so without delay;

2. Observes that, pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive, the majority of Member States have a procedure for giving the mediation settlement agreement the same authority as a judicial decision; notes that this is achieved either by submitting it to the court or by having the agreement notarised, and that it appears that some national legislatures have opted for the former solution, while, by contrast, in many Member States notarisation is also an available option under national law: for instance, whereas in Greece and Slovenia the law provides that a mediation agreement record may be enforced by the courts, in the Netherlands and in Germany agreements can be rendered enforceable as notarial acts ...[+++], and in other Member States, including Austria, they can, as the law currently stands, be rendered enforceable as notarial acts despite the lack of any explicit provision to that effect in the relevant national legislation; calls on the Commission to ensure that all Member States that do not yet comply with Article 6 of the Directive do so without delay;

12. Is of the opinion that the exchange of information prior to a revocation should take place as a matter of transparency, courtesy and loyal cooperation between the institutions concerned thereby ensuring that all institutions are fully aware of the possibility of revocation in good time; however, deems it redundant and confusing to introduce a specific legal obligation in basic acts requiring a statement of reasons for the adoption of certain legal acts in addition to the general requirement laid down in Article 296 TFEU which is applicable to all legal acts;

The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission note that recasting may be either "vertical" (whereby the new legal act replaces a single earlier act) or "horizontal" (whereby the new legal act replaces several parallel earlier acts relating to the same subject).