Case C-293/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche Shell GmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg
Date: 2006-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, repatriation of capital, tax exemption, tax system

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/3

2. Should Question 1 be answered in the negative: is it compa-
tible with Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Arti-
cles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) and with Article 52 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 43 EC) for a national rule to
provide for divergent set-off arrangements for the distribu-
tion of profits by a capital company using portions of its
own capital, resulting in consequent tax liability even in
cases in which the capital company demonstrates that it has
distributed dividends to non-resident shareholders, even
though, under national law, such non-resident shareholders,
unlike resident shareholders, are not entitled to set off
against their own tax the corporation tax thus determined?

(1) OJ L 225, p. 6.

2. Is Article 24(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 to be
interpreted as meaning that imitation or evocation exists
only if it is in the same language as that of the protected
traditional term?

3. Is Article 24(2) of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 to be inter-
preted as meaning that the traditional terms listed in Annex
III are protected only with regard to wines from the same
producer Member State as the protected traditional term?

(1) OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1
(2) OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesver-
waltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Hein-
rich Stefan Schneider v Land Rheinland-Pfalz

(Case C-285/06)

(2006/C 237/05)

Language of the case: German

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche
für Großunternehmen in
Shell GmbH v Finanzamt

Hamburg

(Case C-293/06)

(2006/C 237/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heinrich Stefan Schneider

Defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz

Questions referred

1. Is Article 47(2)(b)

and (c) of Regulation (EC) No
1493/1999 (1) in conjunction with the fifth indent of point
(B)(1)(b) and point (B)(3) of Annex VII to that regulation and
Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 to be inter-
preted as meaning that a particular which refers to the
production or ageing method or the quality of the wine is
permitted only as a regulated ‘optional particular’ in accord-
ance with the fifth indent of point (B)(1)(b) of Annex VII to
Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 under
the conditions
provided for therein and in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No
753/2002 (2), and not as an ‘other particular’ in accordance
with point
to Regulation (EC) No
1493/1999?

(B)(3) of Annex VII

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Shell GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

Questions referred

1. Is it contrary to Article 52, in conjunction with Article 58,
of the EC Treaty (now Article 43 EC, in conjunction with
Article 48 EC) for the Federal Republic of Germany, as the
State of origin, to treat a currency loss of a German control-
ling company resulting from the repatriation of so-called
start-up capital granted to an Italian establishment as being
part of that establishment's profits and to exclude that loss,
on the basis of the exemption under Articles 3(1), 3(3) and
11.1(c) of the 1925 Double Taxation Convention between
Germany and Italy,
for
German tax, even though the currency loss cannot form
to be assessed for
part of
purposes of taxation in Italy and thus cannot be taken into
account in either the State of origin or in the State in which
the establishment is situate?

from the basis of assessment

the establishment's profits

C 237/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2006

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is it contrary to
Article 52, in conjunction with Article 58, of the EC Treaty
(now Article 43 EC, in conjunction with Article 48 EC) if
the currency loss mentioned above is to be included in the
basis for assessment of the German tax but may be deducted
as operating expenditure only in so far as no tax-free profits
are achieved by the Italian establishment?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal
(Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 30 June
2006 — The Queen on the application of Ezgi Payir,
Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk v Secretary of State for the
Home Department

(Case C-294/06)

(2006/C 237/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Questions referred

1. In a case in which:

a) a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the United
Kingdom for two years in order to take up a placement
in that country as an 'au pair' as defined in the United
Kingdom Immigration Rules; and

b) her leave to enter included permission to be employed in

that capacity; and

c) she was continuously employed in that capacity by the
same employer for a period exceeding one year during
her leave to enter; and

(i) a worker within the meaning of Article 6 of Decision
No 1/80 of the Association Council established by
the Association Agreement between the Community
and Turkey?

(ii) duly registered as belonging to the labour force of
the United Kingdom within the meaning of
that
Article?

2. In a case in which:

a) a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the United
Kingdom under its Immigration Rules in order to follow
a course of study in that country; and

b) his leave to enter included permission to be employed in
any occupation with a limit during term time of 20
hours work per week; and

c) he was continuously employed by the same employer for
a period exceeding one year during his leave to enter;

d) that employment was a genuine and effective economic

activity; and

e) that employment was in accordance with national laws

relating to employment and immigration;

then, was the Turkish national concerned, during that
employment:

(i) a worker within the meaning of Article 6 of Decision
No 1/80 of the Association Council established by
the Association Agreement between the Community
and Turkey?

(ii) duly registered as belonging to the labour force of
the United Kingdom within the meaning of
that
Article?

Action brought on 4 July 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-298/06)

(2006/C 237/08)

Language of the case: Greek

d) that employment was a genuine and effective economic

activity; and

Parties

e) that employment was in accordance with national laws

relating to employment and immigration;

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. Tserepa-Lacombe and I Khatzigiannis)

then, was the Turkish national concerned, during that
employment:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic