Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-494/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Senior Engineering Investments BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Directive 69/335 — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — National rules taxing a (subsidiary) company by way of capital duty in respect of a contribution made by its parent company (the grandparent company) in favour of its subsidiary (a sub-subsidiary company) — Capital duty — Increase of capital — Payment  to the share premium account  — Increase in the assets of the company — Increase in the value of shares — Provision of services by a member — Payment made by a member of a member — Payment to a subsidiary —  Real recipient  — Levying of capital duty once only (in the Community) — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Freedom of establishment — National practice exempting a (subsidiary) capital company from taxation only if its subsidiary (sub-subsidiary company) is also established in that Member State)
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital movement, company law, company with share capital, interpretation of the law, subsidiary

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/3

2. Articles 39 EC and 43 EC do not preclude a Member State from
not allowing partial taking-up of a profession, where shortcomings
in the education or training of the party concerned in relation to
that required in the host Member State may be effectively made up
for through the application of the compensatory measures provided
for in Article 4(1) of Directive 89/48. However, Articles 39 EC
and 43 EC do preclude a Member State from not allowing that
partial taking-up when the party concerned so requests and the
differences between the fields of activity are so great that in reality
a full programme of education and training is required, unless the
refusal for that partial taking-up is justified by overriding reasons
based on the general interest, suitable for securing the attainment
of the objective which they pursue and not going beyond what is
necessary in order to attain that objective.

(1) OJ C 226 of 20.9.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 12 January 2006

in Case C-494/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Senior Engineering
Investments BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

company)

in favour of

(Directive 69/335 — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital
— National rules taxing a (subsidiary) company by way of
capital duty in respect of a contribution made by its parent
company (the grandparent
its
subsidiary (a sub-subsidiary company) — Capital duty —
‘to the share premium
Increase of capital — Payment
account’ — Increase in the assets of the company — Increase
in the value of shares — Provision of services by a member
— Payment made by a member of a member — Payment to a
subsidiary — ‘Real recipient’ — Levying of capital duty once
only (in the Community) — Article 52 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Freedom of estab-
lishment — National practice exempting a (subsidiary)
capital company from taxation only if its subsidiary (sub-
is also established in that Member
subsidiary company)

State)

(2006/C 60/05)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-494/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nether-

lands), made by decision of 21 November 2003, received at the
Court on 24 November 2003, in the proceedings Senior Engi-
neering Investments BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën — the
Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), Presi-
dent of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M.
Ilešič and E. Levits,,
Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate
General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 12 January 2006,
in which it ruled as
follows:

In circumstances such as those of
the main proceedings, Article
4(2)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by
Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, read in conjunction
with Article 2(1)
in its preamble,
thereof and the sixth recital
precludes a Member State from levying duty on a (subsidiary) capital
company in respect of a contribution paid by its parent company (the
grandparent company) to its subsidiary (a sub-subsidiary).

(1) OJ C 21, 24.01.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 17 January 2006

in Case C-1/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesgerichtshof in Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceed-
ings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Applicability in
time — Court having jurisdiction)

(2006/C 60/06)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-1/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article
234 EC from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), made by deci-
sion of 27 November 2003, received at the Court on 2 January
in the proceedings brought by Susanne Staubitz-
2004,
Schreiber — the Court
(Grand Chamber), composed of V.
Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and
J. Malenovský, Presidents of Chambers, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puis-
sochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.
Klučka, U. Lõhmus and E. Levits,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 17 January 2006, in which it ruled as follows: