Case C-471/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 14 July 2004 in the case of Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land against Keller Holding GmbH
Date: 2005-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, financing, head office, interpretation of the law, profit, provision of services, shareholding, tax exemption, tax system

C 19/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.1.2005

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
by order of that court of 14 July 2004 in the case of Finan-
zamt Offenbach am Main-Land against Keller Holding
GmbH

(Case C-471/04)

(2005/C 19/26)

(Language of the case: German)

accordance with Article 14 [of Regulation No 1348/2000],
on the other, does the period within which the addressee of
the service may lodge an appeal commence on the date of
the service effected in accordance with Articles 4 to 11
inclusive and not on the date of service effected in accord-
ance with Article 14?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the
service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents
in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37).

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal
Finance Court)
(Germany) of 14 July 2004, received at the
Court Registry on 5 November 2004, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land against
Keller Holding GmbH on the following question:

Is it contrary to Article 52, in conjunction with Article 58, of
the Treaty establishing the European Community and to Article
73b of that Treaty if financing costs incurred by a corporation
which have a direct economic link to profits, not subject to tax
in Germany, derived from a holding in a capital company
established in another Member State may be deducted as oper-
ating expenditure only in so far as no profits from that holding
are distributed on a tax-free basis?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie
van België by judgment of 22 October 2004 in the case of
Plumex v Young Sports N.V.

(Case C-473/04)

(2005/C 19/27)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht by order of that court of 3 August 2004 in
the case of Engin Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested
parties: 1.
interest
Landesan-
before

the Bundesverwaltungsgericht,

the representative of

the national

2.

waltschaft Bayern.

(Case C-481/04)

(2005/C 19/28)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
(Federal Administrative Court), of 3 August 2004, which was
received at the Court Registry on 22 November 2004, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Engin Torun against Stadt
Augsburg,
the
national interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 2. Land-
esanwaltschaft Bayern on the following questions:

the representative of

interested parties: 1.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of 22 October 2004 by the
Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgian Court of Cassation), which
was received at the Court Registry on 9 November 2004, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Plumex v Young Sports N.V.
on the following questions:

1. Is the service defined in Articles 4 to 11 inclusive [of Regu-
lation No 1348/2000] (1) the principal method of service
and service directly by post, as defined in Article 14 [of
Regulation No 1348/2000], a secondary method of service,
with the proviso that the first method takes precedence over
the second method when both are effected in accordance
with the legal provisions?

2. In the case of a combination of methods of service in
accordance with Articles 4 to 11 inclusive [of Regulation
No 1348/2000], on the one hand, and directly by post in

1. Where a Turkish worker has been legally employed in the
Federal Republic of Germany for more than three years,
does his child who has reached the age of majority and has
completed a course of vocational training as a metalworker
by passing the final apprenticeship examination also forfeit
his right of residence that is the corollary of the right under
the second sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
EEC/Turkey Association Council
to
respond to any offer of employment – apart from cases
under Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 or where the host
Member State is left without legitimate reason for a signifi-
cant period of time – where

(‘Decision No 1/80’)

(a) the child has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment
totalling three years and three months for aggravated
robbery and drug offences, the sentence has not been
suspended (even at a later date) and the whole of the
sentence has been served by offsetting the period spent
on remand pending trial?