Case C-379/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by order of that court of  21 September 2005  in Amurta S.G.P.S. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Amsterdam
Date: 2006-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, corporation tax, free movement of capital, interpretation of the law, residence, tax exemption, tax on profits of self-employment

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/3

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative measures necessary
to comply with Directive
2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/EC
concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to
cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive, the French
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Each party shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te Amsterdam by order of that court of 21 September
2005 in Amurta S.G.P.S. v Inspecteur van de Belasting-
dienst/Amsterdam

(Case C-379/05)

(2006/C 22/06)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam
of 21 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17
October 2005,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Amurta S.G.P.S. and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/
Amsterdam on the following questions:

1. Is the exemption under Article 4 of the Wet op de dividend-
belasting 1965 [the 1965 Law on the Taxation of Divi-
dends], as described in paragraphs 5.3 to 5.5 of this judg-
ment, in conjunction with the exemption under Article 4a
of that Law compatible with the provisions on the free
movement of capital (Articles 56 to 58, formerly Articles
73b to 73d) of the EC Treaty, given that the exemption is
applicable only to dividend payments to shareholders liable
to corporation tax in the Netherlands or to foreign share-
holders with a permanent establishment in the Netherlands,
with the shares forming part of the assets of that permanent
to whom the holding exemption under
establishment,
Article 13 of the Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969
[the 1969 Company Taxation Law] applies?

2. Does the answer to the question posed at 6.1 depend on
whether the State of residence of a foreign shareholder/
company to which the exemption under Article 4 of the
Law does not apply grants that shareholder/company full
credit for Netherlands dividend tax?

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 13 October 2005

in Case C-1/05 SA: Intek Co. v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (1)

(Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order
on the Commission of the European Communities)

(2006/C 22/05)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-1/05 SA: application for authorisation to serve a
garnishee order on the Commission of the European Commu-
nities brought on 28 January 2005, Intek Co., established in
Ashgabat (Turkmenistan) (avocat: R. Nathan) against Commis-
sion of the European Communities (Agents: J-F. Pasquier and E.
Manhaeve) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A.
Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur),
A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C.
Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
order on 13 October 2005, the operative part of which is as
follows

1. There is no need to adjudicate.