Case C-232/03: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  23 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Workers — Freedom of movement — Use of vehicles registered abroad and made available to the worker by the employer residing abroad)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, free movement of workers, frontier worker, residence, vehicle registration

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling of VAT and
Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United Kingdom)) — Univer-
sity of Huddersfield Higher Education Corporation v
Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 February
2006 — Commission of the European Communities v
Republic of Finland

(Case C-232/03) (1)

(Case C-223/03) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2),
Article 5(1) and Article 6(1) — Economic activity —
Supplies of goods — Supplies of services — Transaction
designed solely to obtain a tax advantage)

(2006/C 131/04)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: University
Corporation

of Huddersfield Higher

Education

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
Workers — Freedom of movement — Use of vehicles regis-
tered abroad and made available to the worker by the
employer residing abroad)

(2006/C 131/05)

Language of the Case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Martin and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-
Purokoski and T. Pynnä, acting as Agents)

Intervener: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (represented by: K. Manji, acting as Agent and P.
Whipple, barrister)

Defendant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal,
Manchester — Interpretation of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth
Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes –Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ
1977 L 145, p. 1) — Concept of supplies of goods and services
subject to value added tax — Concept of economic activities —
Contracts for lease and lease back having the sole aim of
obtaining a tax advantage

Operative part of the judgment

Transactions of the kind at issue in the main proceedings constitute
supplies of goods or services and an economic activity within the
meaning of Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2), Article 5(1) and
Article 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10
April 1995, provided that they satisfy the objective criteria on which
those concepts are based, even if they are carried out with the sole aim
of obtaining a tax advantage, without any other economic objective.

(1) OJ C 213, 06.09.2003

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Arts. 10
and 39 EC — Conditions for the use for vehicles registered
abroad and made available by their employer to workers
residing in Finland and employed abroad

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by preventing cross-frontier workers residing in
Finland and employed in another Member State from benefiting
from the use of company vehicles which are made available by
their employers established in another Member State and registered
in the latter State on the sole ground that
the cross-frontier
workers concerned reside on Finnish territory, into which the vehi-
cles belonging to their employers have been imported,

and

by preventing the cross-frontier workers concerned from benefiting,
for professional and private purposes, from the use of company
vehicles which are made available by their employers established in
another Member State and registered in the latter State, while
those vehicles are neither intended to be used mainly in Finland on
in fact, used in that way, on the sole
a permanent basis nor,
ground that those workers reside on Finnish territory, into which
the vehicles belonging to their employers have been imported,

the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 39 EC;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

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