Case C-377/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2007 — STEKO Industriemontage GmbH v Finanzamt Speyer-Germersheim
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company with share capital, interpretation of the law, profit, shareholding, tax law, tax relief

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/7

practitioner concerned to be considered to be proceedings
which have as their object the validity of a decision of an organ
of that company for the purposes of Article 22, paragraph 2 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commer-
cial matters (1) so that the courts of the Member State in which
that company has its seat have exclusive jurisdiction?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2201 of 22 December 2000 on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
civil and commercial matters (OJ L 12, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerische
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August
2007 — M-K Europa GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Regensburg

(Case C-383/07)

(2007/C 283/12)

Language of the case: German

for

Reference
from the
preliminary
Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2007 —
Finanzamt
STEKO

Industriemontage

ruling

v

a

GmbH
Speyer-Germersheim

(Case C-377/07)

(2007/C 283/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: STEKO Industriemontage GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Speyer-Germersheim

Question referred

Does Article 56 EC preclude a provision of a Member State
according to which a prohibition on the deduction of reductions
in profit in connection with the holding of a capital company in
another capital company enters into force earlier with regard to
foreign holdings than with regard to domestic (German) hold-
ings?

Referring court

Bayerische Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M-K Europa GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Stadt Regensburg

Questions referred

1. In determining whether a food within the meaning of
Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 (1)
‘[has] not
hitherto been used for human consumption to a significant
degree within the Community’ may it be considered signifi-
cant that shortly before the Regulation entered into force on
15 May 1997 the food was imported into a narrowly
defined region of Community territory (in the present case:
San Marino) and was available in that locality?

2. For a food not to be considered as novel within the meaning
of Article 1(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, does it
suffice to determine that all of the ingredients used in its
production have hitherto been used for human consumption
to a significant degree within the Community?

3. Must Article 1(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 be inter-
preted narrowly such as to exclude from the category
‘foods … consisting of … algae’ foods containing only such
algae as have hitherto been used for human consumption
within the Community?

4. May a food be considered as ‘having a history of a safe food
use’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(e) of Regulation (EC)
No 258/97 if experience regarding its safety only exists in
regions outside Europe (in the present case: Japan)?

5. May a food be considered as ‘having a history of a safe food
use’ because it is produced using ingredients with a safe
history in accordance with a production or processing tech-
nique currently in use,
if no experience exists as to that
combination of ingredients and techniques?