Case C-436/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 October 2006 — Per Gronfeldt, Tatiana Gronfeldt v Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company with share capital, free movement of capital, interpretation of the law, profit, shareholding, tax on investment income

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/33

Question referred

Must Article 87(1) EC be construed as meaning that, by
providing for a rate of tax lower than the basic rate set in
Spanish State legislation and for a deduction from the amount
of tax payable which does not exist in State tax legislation,
provisions in the field of taxation adopted by the Juntas Gener-
ales del Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia amending Articles 29(1)
(a) and 37 of the Provincial Law on Company Tax, which take
effect in the jurisdiction of that infra-State autonomous body,
must be regarded as selective and as covered by the definition of
State aid enshrined in Article 87(1) EC and, accordingly, must
be notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 88(3) EC?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 October 2006 — C

(Case C-435/06)

(2006/C 326/69)

subject to legislation, based on the mutual recognition
and enforcement of judgments and administrative deci-
sions, that has been harmonised in cooperation between
the Member States concerned?

2. If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the affirmative,

is it
possible, given that the Regulation takes no account of the
legislation harmonised by the Nordic Council on the recogni-
tion and enforcement of public law decisions on custody, as
described above, but solely of a corresponding private law
convention, nevertheless to apply this harmonised legislation
based on the direct recognition and enforcement of adminis-
trative decisions as a form of cooperation between adminis-
trative authorities to the taking into custody of a child?

3. If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the affirmative and that
to Question 2 is in the negative, does the Brussels IIa Regu-
lation apply temporally to a case, taking account of Articles
72 and 64(2) of the regulation and the abovementioned
harmonised Nordic legislation on public law decisions on
custody,
in Sweden the administrative authorities took
their decision both on immediate taking into custody and on
placement with a family on 23.2.2005 and submitted their
decision on immediate custody to the administrative court
for confirmation on 25.2.2005, and that court accordingly
confirmed the decision on 3.3.2005?

if

Language of the case: Finnish

(1) OJ L 338, p. 1.

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C

Questions referred

1.

responsibility,

(a) Does Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judg-
ments
in matrimonial matters and the matters of
repealing Regulation (EC) No
parental
1347/2000, (the Brussels 11a Regulation) (1) apply, in a
case such as the present, to the enforcement of a public
law decision in connection with child welfare, relating to
the immediate taking into custody of a child and his or
her placement in a foster family outside the home, taken
as a single decision, in its entirety;

(b) or solely to that part of the decision relating to place-
ment outside the home in a foster family, having regard
to the provision in Article 1(2)(d) of the regulation;

(c) and,

in the latter case,

is the Brussels IIa Regulation
applicable to a decision on placement contained in one
on taking into custody, even if the decision on custody
itself, on which the placement decision is dependent, is

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 October 2006 — Per
Gronfeldt, Tatiana Gronfeldt v Finanzamt Hamburg-Am
Tierpark

(Case C-436/06)

(2006/C 326/70)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Per Gronfeldt, Tatiana Gronfeldt

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark

C 326/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the
European Community (EC), on the free movement of capital,
that
the profits from a sale of shares in a foreign limited
company in 2001 were subject to tax if the seller held, either
directly or indirectly, a share of at least 1 % of the company's
capital within the previous five years, whereas the profits from
the sale of shares in a (national) limited company subject to
unlimited corporation tax in 2001 were, in otherwise compar-
able circumstances, subject to tax only in the case of a substan-
tial shareholding of at least 10 %?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersäch-
sisches Finanzgericht (Germany)
lodged on 24 October
2006 — SECURENTA Göttinger Immobilienanlagen und
Vermögensmanagement AG als Rechtsnachfolgerin der
Göttinger Vermögensanlagen AG v Finanzamt Göttingen

applicant submits — a ‘transaction formula’, applying Article
17(5) of Directive 77/388/EEC mutatis mutandis, also appro-
priate?

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
lodged on 24 October 2006 —
Würzburg (Germany)

Otmar Greser v Bundesagentur für Arbeit

(Case C-438/06)

(2006/C 326/72)

Language of the case: German

(Case C-437/06)

(2006/C 326/71)

Referring court

Sozialgericht Würzburg

Language of the case: German

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:
SECURENTA Göttinger
Vermögensmanagement AG als
Göttinger Vermögensanlagen AG

Immobilienanlagen und
der
Rechtsnachfolgerin

Defendant: Finanzamt Göttingen

Questions referred

1. If a taxable person simultaneously engages in a business
activity and a non-business activity,
is the entitlement to
deduct input tax determined according to the proportion of
assessable and taxable transactions, on the one hand, to the
assessable and exempt transactions, on the other hand (the
applicant's view), or is the deduction of tax allowed only to
the extent that the expenditure connected with the issue of
shares and silent partnerships is to be attributed to the appli-
cant's economic activity within the meaning of Article 2(1)
of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes?

2. If the deduction of tax is allowed only to the extent that the
expenditure connected with the issue of shares and silent
partnerships is to be attributed to the applicant's economic
activity, should the apportionment of the input tax between
business activity and non-business activity be carried out
according to a so-called ‘investment formula’ or is — as the

Applicant: Otmar Greser

Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit

Question referred

The preliminary issue in the present case is how Article 71(1)(b)
of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) is to be interpreted. Under
that provision, must a worker return to his place of residence or
is it sufficient that he returns to another place in the Member
State once a week?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesger-
icht Dresden (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2006 —
Staatsministerium für
citiworks AG v

Sächsisches

Wirtschaft und Arbeit als Landesregulierungsbehörde

(Case C-439/06)

(2006/C 326/73)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Dresden