Case C-481/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 3 August 2004 in the case of Engin Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested parties: 1. the representative of the national interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 2. Landesanwaltschaft Bayern.
Date: 2005-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, imprisonment, interpretation of the law, job access, residence permit

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?

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/15

(b) the child has himself pursued employment as a worker
within the legitimate labour
the Federal
Republic of Germany and has thereby acquired in his
own right a right of residence that is the corollary of the
right of free access to employment under the second or
third indents of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, and
has subsequently forfeited that right?

force of

Communities in case T-213/02 (1) between SNF S.A. and the
Commission of
the European Communities, was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
22 November 2004 by SNF S.A.S, established in Andrézieux,
France, represented by Messrs K. Van Meldegem and C. Mereu,
lawyers.

Is such forfeiture caused by

(aa) the fact that he left his last place of employment as
a result of drug addiction-induced summary termi-
nation of his employment by his employer?

(bb) the fact that, following a period of ill health of
more than three months, he did not register with
the competent authority as unemployed for a
period of three working days between the end of
his incapacity for work and his arrest
for the
commission of a criminal offence?

that

(cc) the fact that he was sentenced to a term of impri-
sonment totalling three years and three months for
aggravated robbery and drug offences,
the
sentence was not suspended (even at a later date),
that the whole of the sentence was served by offset-
ting the period spent on remand pending trial and
that during that time he was not available to the
legitimate labour force but, approximately three
months after his release, did find employment
again with a firm on a temporary basis, without
then having any national right of residence?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Does
a Turkish national forfeit his right of residence that is the
corollary of the right of free access to employment under
the second or third indents of Article 6(1) of Decision No
1/80 in the circumstances described above in Question 1b)?

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 6

September 2004 in case T-213/02;

— declare the Apellant's requests in case T-213/02 admissible;

— rule on the merits or, in the alternative, refer the case to

the Court of First Instance to rule on the merits; and

— order the European Commission to bear all costs and

expenses of both proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the contested order of the Court of
First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

a) The Court of First Instance misinterpreted Article 114(1) of
the Rules of Procedure and infringed the principle of legal
effectiveness and the duty to state reasons;

b) The Court of First Instance erred in law in the legal assess-

ment of the facts;

c) The order of the Court of First Instance infringes the right
to complete and effective judicial protection, and the right
to a fair hearing.

(1) OJ C 233, 28.9.2002, p. 28.

Appeal brought on 22 November 2004 by SNF S.A.S.
against the order made on 6 September 2004 by the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in case T-213/02 between SNF S.A. and the
Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 22 November 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-482/04 P)

(2005/C 19/29)

(Language of procedure: English)

(Case C-483/04)

(2005/C 19/30)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An appeal against the order made on 6 September 2004 by the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European

Justice of

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
the European Communities on 22
Court of
November 2004 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by Knut Simonsson and Enrico Traversa
acting as Agents.