Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

C 237/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.9.

2006

Operative part of the judgment informing the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6
of that directive;
The Court:
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the proceedings.
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives Pleas in law and main arguments
89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recog-
nition of professional qualifications and Council Directives
77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, The period laid down for implementing the directive expired
78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, on 25 June 2005.
85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC
concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care,
dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharma- (1) OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17.
cist and doctor, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 205, 20.08.2005. Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
nanzhof (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2006 — Finanzamt
Hamburg-Am Tierpark v Burda Verlagsbeteiligungen
GmbH

(Case C-284/06)

Action brought on 6 June 2006 — Commission of the (2006/C 237/04)


European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
Language of the case: German
(Case C-253/06)

(2006/C 237/03)
Referring court
Language of the case: German
Bundesfinanzhof

Parties Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: F. Simonetti and B. Schima, acting as Agents)
Respondent: Burda Verlagsbeteiligungen GmbH
Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

Forms of order sought


1. Is there withholding tax within the meaning of Article 5(1)
of Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 on the
The applicant claims that the Court should: common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent
companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ
— declare that, by not bringing into force the laws, regulations 1990 L 225, p. 6, …, now Article 5 as amended by Direc-
and administrative provisions necessary to implement tive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003, OJ 2004 L 7,
Directive 2003/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of p. 41) in the case in which national law provides that,
the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participa- where profits are distributed by a subsidiary to its parent
tion in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and company, income and asset increases of the capital
programmes relating to the environment and amending company are taxed which, under national law, would not be
with regard to public participation and access to justice taxed if they remained with the subsidiary and were not
Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, or by not distributed to the parent company?
30.9.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 237/3

2. Should Question 1 be answered in the negative: is it compa- 2. Is Article 24(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 to be
tible with Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Arti- interpreted as meaning that imitation or evocation exists
cles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) and with Article 52 of only if it is in the same language as that of the protected
the EC Treaty (now Article 43 EC) for a national rule to traditional term?
provide for divergent set-off arrangements for the distribu-
tion of profits by a capital company using portions of its 3. Is Article 24(2) of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 to be inter-
own capital, resulting in consequent tax liability even in preted as meaning that the traditional terms listed in Annex
cases in which the capital company demonstrates that it has III are protected only with regard to wines from the same
distributed dividends to non-resident shareholders, even producer Member State as the protected traditional term?
though, under national law, such non-resident shareholders,
unlike resident shareholders, are not entitled to set off
against their own tax the corporation tax thus determined? (1) OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1
(2) OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1

(1) OJ L 225, p. 6.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht


Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesver- Shell GmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in
waltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Hein- Hamburg
rich Stefan Schneider v Land Rheinland-Pfalz
(Case C-293/06)
(Case C-285/06)
(2006/C 237/06)
(2006/C 237/05)
Language of the case: German
Language of the case: German

Referring court
Referring court
Finanzgericht Hamburg
Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Deutsche Shell GmbH
Applicant: Heinrich Stefan Schneider
Defendant: Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg
Defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz

Questions referred

Questions referred
1. Is it contrary to Article 52, in conjunction with Article 58,
of the EC Treaty (now Article 43 EC, in conjunction with
1. Is Article 47(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No Article 48 EC) for the Federal Republic of Germany, as the
1493/1999 (1) in conjunction with the fifth indent of point State of origin, to treat a currency loss of a German control-
(B)(1)(b) and point (B)(3) of Annex VII to that regulation and ling company resulting from the repatriation of so-called
Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 to be inter- start-up capital granted to an Italian establishment as being
preted as meaning that a particular which refers to the part of that establishment's profits and to exclude that loss,
production or ageing method or the quality of the wine is on the basis of the exemption under Articles 3(1), 3(3) and
permitted only as a regulated ‘optional particular’ in accord- 11.1(c) of the 1925 Double Taxation Convention between
ance with the fifth indent of point (B)(1)(b) of Annex VII to Germany and Italy, from the basis of assessment for
Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 under the conditions German tax, even though the currency loss cannot form
provided for therein and in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No part of the establishment's profits to be assessed for
753/2002 (2), and not as an ‘other particular’ in accordance purposes of taxation in Italy and thus cannot be taken into
with point (B)(3) of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No account in either the State of origin or in the State in which
1493/1999? the establishment is situate?