Case C-286/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  21 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Silvia Hosse v Land Salzburg (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 4(2b) — Special non-contributory benefits — Austrian benefit intended to cover the risk of reliance on care — Classification of the benefit and lawfulness of the residence condition from the point of view of Regulation No 1408/71 — Dependant of the insured person)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of workers, health expenditure, interpretation of the law, pay, self-employed person, social security, social-security benefit

C 131/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs;

4. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to bear its own costs.

dispute in the main proceedings, by reference to the overall tax
rate which would have been applicable if the profits of a subsidiary
had been distributed to its parent company.

(1) OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.

(1) OJ C 200, 23.08.2003.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
finanzhof) — CLT-UFA SA v Finanzamt Köln-West

(Case C-253/03) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Tax on
company profits)

(2006/C 131/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CLT-UFA SA

Defendant: Finanzamt Köln-West

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Inter-
pretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
ment, Article 43 EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 48 EC) — National
legislation on tax on company
profits — Taxation of places of business — Rate of taxation of
profits made by branches of foreign capital companies higher
than the rate of taxation of profits made by subsidiaries and
distributed to foreign parent companies

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43
EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) preclude
a national law such as the one in dispute in the main proceedings
which, in the case of a branch of a company having its seat in
another Member State, lays down a tax rate on the profits of that
branch which is higher than that on the profits of a subsidiary of
such a company where that subsidiary distributes its profits in full
to its parent company.

2. It is for the national court to determine the tax rate which must be
applied to the profits made by a branch, such as the one in

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Silvia Hosse v Land Salzburg

(Case C-286/03) (1)

(Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No
1408/71 — Article 4(2b) — Special non-contributory bene-
fits — Austrian benefit intended to cover the risk of reliance
on care — Classification of the benefit and lawfulness of the
residence condition from the point of view of Regulation No
1408/71 — Dependant of the insured person)

(2006/C 131/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Silvia Hosse

Defendant: Land Salzburg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof —
Interpretation of Articles 4(2b) and 19 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
persons and to members of their families moving within the
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1),
and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972
laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No
1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97
— Legislation of a province (Salzburg) under which the right
to benefits covering the risk of dependency of a handicapped
child who is a member of the family of a worker is subject to a
residence condition — Concept of special non-contributory
benefit — Interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No
1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English
Special Edition 1968(II), p. 75) — Social advantage

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/5

Operative part of the judgment

1. A care allowance such as that provided for by the Salzburger Pfle-
gegeldgesetz does not constitute a special non-contributory benefit
within the meaning of Article 4(2b) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons,
to self-employed persons
and to members of their families moving within the Community
but a sickness benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of
that regulation.

2. A member of the family of a worker employed in the Province of
Salzburg who lives with his family in Germany may, where he
fulfils the other conditions of grant, claim from the competent
institution of the worker's place of employment payment of a care
allowance such as that paid under the Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz,
as a sickness benefit in cash as provided for in Article 19 of Regu-
lation No 1408/71, in so far as the member of the family is not
entitled to a similar benefit under the legislation of the State in
whose territory he resides.

(1) OJ C 226, 20.09.2003

— National rules which allow maritime transport services in
the Vigo estuary to be entrusted to a single operator for 20
years and which permit a more restrictive regime which is
subject to public-service obligations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that: by maintaining in force legislation which:

— allows a concession for maritime transport services in the Vigo
estuary to be granted to a single operator for a period of 20
years and which includes as a criterion for the award of that
concession experience in transport acquired in that estuary,

— allows the imposition of public service obligations on seasonal
transport

services with the islands and regular

transport
services between mainland ports,

— was not the subject of any consultation with the Commission

of the European Communities prior to being approved,

the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Articles 1, 4 and 9 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992
applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) and has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom
of Spain

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(Case C-323/03) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation
(EEC) No 3577/92 — Maritime cabotage — Whether applic-
able to passenger transport services in the Vigo estuary —
Twenty-year concession to a single operator — Compatibility
— Possibility of concluding public service contracts or
imposing public service obligations — Standstill clause)

(2006/C 131/08)

Language of the Case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: I. Martínez del Peral and K. Simonsson, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Fraguas Gadea
and J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agents)

Re:

(1) OJ C 239, 04.10.2003.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribu-
nale di Cagliari, Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari) —
Giuseppe Atzeni, Francesco Atzori, Giuseppe Ignazio Boi
v Regione autonoma della Sardegna

(Joined Cases C-346/03 and C-529/03) (1)

(State aid — Decision 97/612/EC — Preferential loans in
favour of agricultural undertakings — Article 92(2)(b) and
(3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 87(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (c) EC) — Admissibility —
Legal basis — Legitimate expectations)

(2006/C 131/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Arts 1, 4, 7 and 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92
of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to
provide services to maritime transport within Member States
(maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) and the EC Treaty

Referring court

Tribunale di Cagliari, Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari