C-143/86

acquisition by residents of domestic Mr President, securities. Members of the Court, 6. The second argument put forward is that 1. There is no need for me to rehearse the such transactions are implicitly covered by facts in this case since they have been thor­ the directive. I am unable to agree with that oughly described this morning. view either. It is not supported by the wording or the scheme of the directive. Article 2 of the directive provides that 2. I can therefore turn my attention without general (exchange-control) permission is to further ado to the two main questions be granted in respect of certain transactions raised. The first is whether the 1960 Council set out in List B of Annex I to the directive. Directive is applicable. Two arguments have But the transactions at issue do not fall into been adduced to that effect. that category. Transactions liberalized under the directive were therefore not involved. 3. According to the first argument the directive is applicable because what was involved was the acquisition by residents of 7. In arriving at this conclusion I concur foreign securities in so far as the shares in with both the Irish Government and the question were foreign shares according to Commission. I therefore consider that the Irish law. answer to the questions before the Court does not affect the proceedings before the Circuit Court of Ireland. 4. It is not possible to accept that view since the interpretation of the expression 'foreign securities' used in the directive is determined 8. I therefore take the view that the not by national law but by Community law, questions submitted for a preliminary ruling namely in this case by the nomenclature set should be answered in the following terms: out on page 932 of the relevant Official Journal of 1960 1, which according to Article 10 of the directive forms an integral 'The acquisition and sale by residents of part of that instrument. domestic securities on a foreign stock exchange are not covered by the Council Directive of 11 May 1960 for the implemen­ 5. According to that nomenclature, the tation of Article 67 of the Treaty.' determining factor is the place where the company has its principal place of business. 9. Nevertheless I would like to indicate And it is uncontested that the principal briefly how I would have answered the place of business of the companies whose questions had it been necessary to consider shares are at issue in this case is in Ireland; them. consequently what is involved is the 10. As regards the first question concerning * Translated from the German. the direct applicability of the directive, I 1 — First Council Directive for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty, Official Journal, English Special Edition would say that, according to the Court's 1959-62, p. 49, at p. 55. case-law, individuals are of course entitled,

16. The parties disagree as to this point. In my opinion that issue should be resolved 12. The second question has to be answered when it is brought before the Court either only in the event that the first question is by Member States or by Community answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, institutions. In these proceedings the there is no need to consider that question Commission and the Member State which either. has taken part in them are at one on this point. Naturally, the defendants in the main proceedings also endorse that view. However, that view is determined to such a considerable extent by the interests of those who share it that I consider that the Court 13. In order to give the national court the should not base its decision thereon but fullest possible answer with regard to the should leave the question to be resolved in issues arising in the proceedings pending other proceedings. before it, I would add that the transactions carried out by the parties to the proceedings before the national court do not rank among the transactions which were liberalized by the Directive of 11 May 1960, and indeed at that time were still subject to 17. If, nevertheless, the Court should wish the control of the Member States. to resolve the matter, I consider that these proceedings have disclosed nothing capable of casting doubt on the validity of the Commission decision.

14. I have already stated why that is so and I will add that since then the Council has in fact adopted a directive which, as its wording makes quite clear, is intended to 18. I now turn to the fourth question, that liberalize such transactions as well. 2 is to say, whether Ireland was entitled under the Commission decision to impose 2 — Council Directive 86/566/EEC of 17 November 1986, restrictions on its residents in regard to the Official Journal 1986, L 332, p. 22. transactions in question.