Case C-418/07: 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
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agency abroad, corporation tax, interpretation of the law, parent company, right of establishment, subsidiary, tax law, tax relief

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.