Case C-419/07: Action brought on 12 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Sweden, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, digital technology, monopoly, national implementing measure, provision of services, telecommunications, transmission network

C 283/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.11.2007

The Commission further submits that the Hellenic Republic has
not adopted all the necessary measures to ensure observance of
the rules governing the stunning of animals at the time of
slaughter and to ensure appropriate inspections and controls in
slaughterhouses.

The Commission states that both on expiry of the period set in
the reasoned opinion and after that date, and notwithstanding
certain efforts on the part of the Greek authorities, the Hellenic
Republic had not adopted all the measures necessary to make
good the deficiencies alleged against it. The majority of the
recommendations addressed to the Greek authorities were not
implemented or were implemented inadequately. On the other
hand, mission reports paint a very worrying picture regarding
implementation of the abovementioned measures.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.
(2) OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

the parent company, when it

Article 223 A et seq. of the code général des impôts — of
including within the membership of a tax-integrated group a
sub-subsidiary of
is held
through a subsidiary which, being established in another
Member State of the European Community and not carrying
on business in France, is not subject to French corporation
tax and thus cannot itself form part of the group, constitute
a restriction on freedom of establishment by reason of the
the parent
tax consequences arising from the choice of
company as to whether to hold a sub-subsidiary through a
French subsidiary or, instead, through a subsidiary established
in another Member State?

2. If the answer is in the affirmative, can such a restriction be
justified either by the need to maintain the coherence of the
‘tax integration’ system — in particular the arrangements for
the tax neutrality of transactions within the group, having
regard to the consequences of a system which consists of
treating a subsidiary established in another Member State as
belonging to the group solely for the purposes of the condi-
tion as to the indirect holding of the sub-subsidiary, while
remaining automatically excluded from the application of the
group scheme since it is not subject to French tax — or by
any other overriding reason of public interest?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat
(France) lodged on 12 September 2007 — Société Papillon
v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la
function publique

(Case C-418/07)

(2007/C 283/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Papillon

Action brought on 12 September 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-419/07)

(2007/C 283/33)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: K. Mojzesowicz and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la
function publique

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

Questions referred

1. Inasmuch as the tax benefit arising under the ‘tax integration’
scheme affects the liability to tax of the parent company of
the group, which can offset the profits and losses of all the
companies of the integrated group, and benefit from the tax
neutrality of the internal transactions of that group, does the
impossibility — resulting from the scheme laid down under

— Declare that, by failing correctly to implement Article 2 of
Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competi-
tion in the markets for electronic communications networks
and services (1) (the Competition Directive), the Kingdom of
Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations thereunder;

— order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/19

Pleas in law and main arguments

The digital broadcasting licences
issued by the Swedish
Government are State measures which, inter alia, regulate the use
of digital broadcasting services and thus indirectly the supply of
such services in the Kingdom of Sweden. The requirement in
the currently valid licences that the licence holder is to comply
with section 2 of the cooperation agreement indirectly gives the
State company Boxer a monopoly for access control services
(including encryption), contrary to Article 2(1) of the Competi-
tion Directive. The retention of the obligation to comply with
that section of the cooperation agreement thus prevents under-
takings interested in offering a complete range of digital broad-
casting services from enjoying the rights which Article 2(2) and
(3) is intended to guarantee to them. The Commission therefore
notes that Sweden has failed correctly to implement the Compe-
tition Directive in its national legal order with regard to digital
transfer and broadcasting services over the terrestrial network.

(1) OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21.

principles of good laboratory practice on the part of the labora-
tories carrying out tests on industrial chemicals. Neither has any
authority been designated in Spain as responsible for the verifi-
cation of the compliance with the principles of good laboratory
practice on the part of those aforementioned laboratories or, in
any case, the name of that authority has not been communi-
cated to the Commission.

Consequently it can be stated that the Kingdom of Spain has
proceeded without adopting the necessary measures for the veri-
fication of compliance of good laboratory practice relating to
inspections and study checks in the industrial chemical products
sector as intended in Article 3 of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 50, 20.2.2004, p. 44.

Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-422/07)

(2007/C 283/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

(Case C-424/07)

(2007/C 283/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Braun and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Forms of order sought

— Declare that, by not adopting the necessary measures for
verification of compliance with good laboratory practice in
relation to inspections and study checks in the industrial
chemical substances sector, the Kingdom of Spain has failed
its obligations under Article 3 of Directive
to fulfil
2004/10/EC (1) of
the
Council of 11 February 2004 on the harmonisation of laws,
regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
application of the principles of good laboratory practice and
the verification of their applications for tests on chemical
substances

the European Parliament and of

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission has no evidence that the necessary measures
have been adopted in Spain for study checks in accordance with

Form of order sought

— declare that, with the provisions made in paragraphs 3
No 12(b) and 9(a) of the German Law on Telecommunica-
tions (Telekommunikationsgesetz — ‘TKG’), newly inserted
into the TKG by the Law amending the laws governing tele-
communications of 18 February 2007, the Federal Republic
of Germany has infringed Articles 6, 7, 15(3), 16 and 8(1)
and (2) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regula-
tory framework for electronic communications networks
and services (1), Article 8(4) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002
on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communica-
tions networks and associated facilities (2), as well as
Article 17(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal
service and users' rights relating to electronic communica-
tions networks and services (3);

— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.