Case C-48/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 5 February 2007 — Belgian State v Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA
Date: 2007-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: corporation tax, interpretation of the law, parent company, subsidiary, tax exemption, tax on profits of self-employment, tax system

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/21

3. The CFI erred in law in holding that (i) the Appellant cannot
be said to have acted benevolently, (ii) the Commission was
able to manage the project itself, and (iii) there is a require-
ment that a person claiming under the principle of nego-
tiorum gestio must necessarily act without the knowledge of
the principal.

4. The CFI's findings on the pleas of unjust enrichment and
negotiorum gestio on the one hand, and the plea of legitimate
expectations on the other hand, are inconsistent.

5. In rejecting the Appellant's claim based on negligence or
fault liability, the CFI erred in considering that insufficient
argument had been adduced by the Appellant, given that the
matter speaks for itself on the facts of this case in the par-
ticular
the Commission exercises
powers of recovery under the Financial Regulation.

circumstances where

6. The CFI erred in holding (i) that there was no evidence
before the Court to prove that the assurances relied upon by
the Appellant were communicated at
the meeting of 2
October 1998 and (ii) that it was highly unlikely that such
assurances were communicated.

7. The CFI erred in law in holding that

the Commission's
failure to make a note of the meeting of 2 October 1998
established the informality of that meeting and, from this
the
it erroneously discounted the possibility of
error,
Commission having communicated such assurances by one
means or another. Further,
the CFI wrongly took into
account the manner by which the assurances were conveyed,
and erroneously failed to take into account
the proper
context, namely a context in which the Commission had
committed itself to do no more than pay for work done
pursuant to a properly constituted contractual specification,
and for which the Commission already had a budget.

(1) OJ L 356, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel
de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 5 February 2007 — Belgian
State v Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgian State

Defendant: Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA

Question referred

Is the Law of 28 December 1992, which amended the wording
of Article 202 of the 1992 Code of Taxation on Income by
referring to Directive 90/435/EEC (1) and required that the bene-
ficial owner of dividends have a holding of capital
in the
Company which distributed such dividend, in as much as that
Law does not explicitly specify that the holding must be as full
owner and therefore implicitly permits the interpretation made
by the respondent, that the mere holding of a right of usufruct
of shareholdings in the capital carries the right to tax exemption
on such dividends, compatible with the provisions of that Direc-
tive concerning holdings in capital, and in particular with its
Articles 3, 4 and 5?

(1) Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common
system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and
subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ L 225, p. 6).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te
Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 6 February 2007 — Centrum
voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v
NV Firma Feryn

(Case C-54/07)

(2007/C 82/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

(Case C-48/07)

(2007/C 82/38)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

Appellant: Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racisme-
bestrijding

Cour d'Appel de Liège

Respondent: NV Firma Feryn