Case C-439/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Dresden (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2006 — citiworks AG v Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit als Landesregulierungsbehörde
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, energy distribution, energy grid, energy supply, energy transport, gas, interpretation of the law

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

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/35

Parties to the main proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: citiworks AG

Defendant: Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und
Arbeit as regulatory authority for the Land

Additional parties: 1. Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH, 2. Bundes-
netzagentur.

Question referred

Is the first point of Paragraph 110(1) of the Gesetz über die
Elektrizitäts- und Gasversorgung (Law on electricity and gas
supply or ‘EnWG’) compatible with Article 20(1) of Directive
2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (1)
inasmuch as in accordance with the conditions laid down in the
first point of Paragraph 110(1) of the EnWG a so-called ‘opera-
tion network’
is exempted from the general provisions on
system access (Paragraphs 20 to 28a of the EnWG) even where
such system access would not impose an unreasonable burden?

the national

Following receipt of a complaint, the Commission examined
whether
legislation complied with Directive
1999/31/EC. The non-compliance found by the Commission is
due to late transposition by the Italian Republic. The directive
provides for two distinct legal regimes, depending on whether
new or existing landfill sites are at issue. Because of the late
transposition effected by the Legislative Decree some landfill
sites which should have been subject to the regime laid down
for new landfill sites are instead subject to the regime laid down
for existing landfill sites.

(1) OJ L 1999 182, p. 1.

(1) OJ L 176, p. 37.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo
Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 27 October
2006 — Erika Hollmann v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-443/06)

(2006/C 326/75)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Action brought on 26 October 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-442/06)

(2006/C 326/74)

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Language of the case: Italian

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Applicant: Erika Hollmann

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Intervener: Ministério Público

Defendant: Italian Republic

Question referred

Form of order sought

— declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force Legislative
Decree No 36 of 13 January 2003, as amended, which
transposes into national law Directive 1999/31/EC (1) in a
manner inconsistent with the directive itself,
the Italian
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Direc-
tive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Does Article 43(2) of the Personal Income Tax Code (CIRS),
approved by Decree-law No. 442-A/88 of 30 November 1988,
as amended by Law No. 109-B/2001 of 27 December 2001,
which limits the incidence of the tax to 50 % of capital gains
realised by persons residing in Portugal, infringe Articles 12, 18,
39, 43 and 56 of the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity by excluding from that limitation capital gains realised
by a person residing in another Member State of the European
Union?