This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62001CJ0167
Judgment of the Court of 30 September 2003. # Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Kantongerecht te Amsterdam - Netherlands. # Articles 43 EC, 46 EC and 48 EC - Company formed in one Member State and carrying on its activities in another Member State - Application of the company law of the Member State of establishment intended to protect the interests of others. # Case C-167/01.
Euroopa Kohtu otsus, 30. september 2003.
Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam versus Inspire Art Ltd.
Eelotsusetaotlus: Kantongerecht te Amsterdam - Madalmaad.
Kohtuasi C-167/01.
Euroopa Kohtu otsus, 30. september 2003.
Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam versus Inspire Art Ltd.
Eelotsusetaotlus: Kantongerecht te Amsterdam - Madalmaad.
Kohtuasi C-167/01.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2003:512
«(Articles 43 EC, 46 EC and 48 EC – Company formed in one Member State and carrying on its activities in another Member State – Application of the company law of the Member State of establishment intended to protect the interests of others)»
|
||||
|
||||
(Art. 10 EC)
(Council Directive 89/666, Art. 2)
(Arts 43 EC and 48 EC)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
30 September 2003 (1)
((Articles 43 EC, 46 EC and 48 EC – Company formed in one Member State and carrying on its activities in another Member State – Application of the company law of the Member State of establishment intended to protect the interests of others))
In Case C-167/01, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Kantongerecht te Amsterdam (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdamand
Inspire Art Ltd, on the interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 46 EC and 48 EC,THE COURT,,
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing the oral observations of the Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam, represented by R. Hermans and E. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaten, of Inspire Art Ltd, represented by G. van der Wal, of the Netherlands Government, represented by J.G.M. van Bakel, acting as Agent, of the German Government, represented by A. Dittrich, of the United Kingdom Government, represented by J. Stratford, and of the Commission, represented by C. Schmidt and H. van Lier, acting as Agent, at the hearing on 26 November 2002,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 30 January 2003,
gives the following
On those grounds,
THE COURT,
in answer to the questions referred to it by the Kantongerecht te Amsterdam by order of 5 February 2001, hereby rules:
Rodríguez Iglesias |
Puissochet |
Wathelet |
Schintgen |
Timmermans |
Gulmann |
Edward |
La Pergola |
Jann |
Skouris |
Macken |
Colneric |
von Bahr |
Cunha Rodrigues |
Rosas |
R. Grass |
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias |
Registrar |
President |