Case C-434/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León v Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Bilbao, Confederación Empresarial Vasca
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, competition, corporation tax, interpretation of the law, tax law, tax relief, tax system

C 326/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja

Defendants: Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Juntas Generales de
Guipúzcoa, Confederación Empresarial Vasca

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 Gipuzkoa 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 defini-
tion 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 Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País
Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Comunidad
Autónoma de Castilla y León v Juntas Generales de
Guipúzcoa, Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Confederación
Empresarial Vasca

(Case C-432/06)

(2006/C 326/66)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del
País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León

Defendants: Juntas Generales de Guipúzcoa, Diputación Foral de
Guipúzcoa, Confederación Empresarial Vasca

Questions 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 Gipuzkoa 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 defini-
tion 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 Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País
Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Comunidad
Autónoma de Castilla y León v Juntas Generales del Terri-
torio Histórico de Álava, Diputación Foral de Álava,
Confederación Empresarial Vasca

(Case C-433/06)

(2006/C 326/67)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del
País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León

Defendant:
Diputación Foral de Álava, Confederación Empresarial Vasca

Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Álava,

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 Álava 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 Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País
Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Comunidad
Autónoma de Castilla y León v Diputación Foral de
Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de
Vizcaya,
Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de
Bilbao, Confederación Empresarial Vasca

(Case C-434/06)

(2006/C 326/68)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del
País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León

Defendants: Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Juntas Generales del
Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria
y Navegación de Bilbao, Confederación Empresarial Vasca

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