Case C-374/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Corporation tax — Payment of dividends — Tax credit — Separate treatment of resident and non-resident shareholders — Bilateral double taxation conventions)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: corporation tax, double taxation, free movement of capital, interpretation of the law, right of establishment, tax on profits of self-employment, tax relief

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/3

2. Legislation containing an absolute prohibition of derogation, by
agreement, from the minimum fees set by a scale of lawyers' fees,
such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for services which are
(a) court services and (b) reserved to lawyers constitutes a restriction
on freedom to provide services laid down in Article 49 EC. It is for
in the
the national court to determine whether such legislation,
light of the detailed rules for its application, actually serves the
objectives of protection of consumers and the proper administration
of
justice which might justify it and whether the restrictions it
imposes do not appear disproportionate having regard to those
objectives.

2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of copyright and related
rights in the information society, the distribution of a signal by
means of television sets by a hotel to customers staying in its
rooms, whatever technique is used to transmit the signal, constitutes
communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of
that directive.

2. The private nature of hotel rooms does not preclude the communi-
television sets from constituting
cation of a work by means of
communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of
Directive 2001/29.

(1) OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.

OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.

(1) OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 December
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audi-
encia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Sociedad
General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael
Hoteles SA

(Case C-306/05) (1)

(Copyright and related rights in the information society —
Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3 — Concept of communica-
tion to the public — Works communicated by means of televi-
sion sets installed in hotel rooms)

(2006/C 331/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High
Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division,
United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT
Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue

(Case C-374/04) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital —
Corporation tax — Payment of dividends — Tax credit —
Separate treatment of resident and non-resident shareholders
— Bilateral double taxation conventions)

(2006/C 331/05)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division

Applicant: Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España
(SGAE)

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: Rafael Hoteles SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de
Barcelona — Interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EEC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on
the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related
rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, page 10) —
Meaning of ‘act of communication to the public’ (Article 3 of
the directive) — Meaning of
‘strictly domestic location’ —
Works made available on television sets installed in hotel rooms

Operative part of the judgment

1. While the mere provision of physical facilities does not as such
to communication within the meaning of Directive

amount

Applicants: Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litiga-
tion

Defendant: Commissioners of Inland Revenue

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of
England and Wales, Chancery Division — National legislation
on corporation tax — Retention at source (‘advance corporation
tax’) applied to the profits distributed by a subsidiary to a parent
company — Tax credit designed to take account of a retention
made upstream — Benefit of the tax credit limited to residents
and to residents of certain other Member States party to a
convention for avoiding double taxation containing a clause to
that effect — Liability of a Member State for breach of Com-
munity law — Form of redress

C 331/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Operative part of the judgment

and of the Council as regards the application of certain provi-
sions to Estonia (OJ 2004 L 236, p. 10) — Legal basis

1. Articles 43 EC and 56 EC do not prevent a Member State, on a
distribution of dividends by a company resident in that State, from
granting companies receiving those dividends which are also resident
in that State a tax credit equal to the fraction of the corporation
tax paid on the distributed profits by the company making the
distribution, when it does not grant such a tax credit to companies
receiving such dividends which are resident
in another Member
State and are not subject to tax on dividends in the first State;

2. Articles 43 EC and 56 EC do not preclude a situation in which a
to a tax credit
Member State does not extend the entitlement
provided for
in a double taxation convention concluded with
another Member State for companies resident in the second State
which receive dividends from a company resident in the first State
to companies resident in a third Member State with which it has
concluded a double taxation convention which does not provide for
such an entitlement for companies resident in that third State.

(1) OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November
2006 — European Parliament v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case C-413/04) (1)

(Directive 2003/54/EC — Common rules for the internal
market in electricity — Directive 2004/85/EC — Temporary
derogations in favour of Estonia — Legal basis)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Annuls Council Directive 2004/85/EC of 28 June 2004
amending Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council as regards the application of certain provisions to
Estonia, in so far as it grants Estonia a derogation from the appli-
cation of Article 21(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the
European Parliament and of
the Council of 26 June 2003
concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and
repealing Directive 96/92/EC going beyond 31 December 2008
and imposes a corresponding obligation to ensure only a partial
opening of the market representing 35 % of consumption on 1
January 2009 and an obligation to communicate annually the
consumption thresholds extending eligibility to final customers;

2) Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3) Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

4) Orders the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Estonia and the
Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

(2006/C 331/06)

Language of the case: French

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November
2006 — European Parliament v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by A. Baas and U.
Rösslein, agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union, (represented by A.
Lopes Sabino and M. Bishop)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by: J. Sack and P. Van Nuffel, agents)

(Case C-414/04) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 — Conditions for access to
the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity — Regu-
lation (EC) No 1223/2004 — Temporary derogations in
favour of Slovenia — Legal basis)

(2006/C 331/07)

Language of the case: French

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Estonia, (repre-
sented by L. Uibo, agent), Republic of Poland, (represented by
M. Węglarz, T. Nowakowski and T. Krawczyk, agents)

Parties

Re:

Applicant: European Parliament, (represented by: A. Baas and U.
Rösslein, Agents)

Annulment of Council Directive 2004/85/EC of 28 June 2004
the European Parliament
amending Directive 2003/54/EC of

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities, (repre-
sented by J. Sack and P. Van Nuffel, Agents)