Case C-298/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany)) — Columbus Container Services BVBA & Co. v Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt (Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Taxes on revenue and wealth — Conditions for taxing the profits of an establishment situated in another Member State — Double taxation convention — Methods of exempting or offsetting tax)
Date: 2007-12-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Germany, double taxation, free movement of capital, interpretation of the law, tax convention, tax system

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/3

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, acting
as Agent, and D. Del Gaizo, lawyer)

Parties to the main proceedings

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2004/800/EC of
30 March 2004 declaring incompatible with the common
market the aid scheme put into effect by Italy providing for
urgent measures to assist employment in firms in financial diffi-
least
culty,
1 000 employees (Aid No CR 62/2003, ex NN 7/2003 — Italy)
(OJ 2004 L 352, p. 10) — Failure to adopt, within the
prescribed period, the measures necessary to recover the aid
declared incompatible with the common market

administration,

having

special

and

in

at

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the
measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid declared
unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commis-
sion Decision 2004/800/EC of 30 March 2004 on the State aid
scheme put into effect by Italy providing for urgent measures to
assist employment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;

Applicant: Columbus Container Services BVBA & Co.

Defendant: Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Münster —
Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 56 EC, 57 EC and 58 EC —
Freedom of establishment and free movement of capital —
Controlled-foreign-corporation income which is the designated
passive income of a foreign permanent establishment of a party
with unlimited liability to tax in Germany — National legisla-
tion offsetting the foreign tax on that income against national
tax, contrary to the provisions of the double taxation conven-
tion with Belgium, which provides for use of the method of
exemption from taxation

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC and 56 EC must be interpreted as not precluding tax
legislation of a Member State under which the income of a resident
national derived from capital invested in an establishment which has
its registered office in another Member State is, notwithstanding the
existence of a double taxation convention concluded with the Member
State in which the establishment has its registered office, not exempted
from national income tax but is subject to national taxation against
which the tax levied in the other Member State is set off.

2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.

(1) OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December
a preliminary ruling from the
2007 (reference
Finanzgericht Münster (Germany)) — Columbus Container
Services BVBA & Co. v Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt

for

(Case C-298/05) (1)

(Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Taxes on revenue and wealth
— Conditions for taxing the profits of an establishment situ-
ated in another Member State — Double taxation convention
— Methods of exempting or offsetting tax)

(2008/C 22/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 November
the European Communities v
2007 — Commission of

Republic of Austria

(Case C-393/05) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 — Organic production of
agricultural products — Private inspection bodies — Require-
ment of an establishment or permanent infrastructure in the
Member State where the services are provided — Justifications
— Connection with the exercise of official authority —
Article 55 EC — Consumer protection)

(2008/C 22/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer,
Agent)