Case C-155/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 16 April 2008 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2008-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank deposit, banking secrecy, foreign capital, interpretation of the law, savings, tax inspection

C 158/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2008

procedure and, if the Commission had complied with the proce-
dural requirements of Article 20(5) of the Basic Regulation, the
appellant could have validly put forward its own interpretation
of Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden lodged on 16 April 2008 — X v
Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 imposing a
definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provi-
sional duty imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the
People's Republic of China and Ukraine (OJ 2007 L 109, p. 12).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

(Case C-155/08)

(2008/C 158/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de Cataluña, Spain lodged on 14 April
2008 — N.N. Renta, S.A. v Generalitat de Catalunya

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Referring court

(Case C-151/08)

(2008/C 158/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña, Spain

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Parties to the main proceedings

Questions referred

Applicant: N.N. Renta, S.A.

Defendants: Generalitat de Catalunya

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 to maintain the variable or
proportional amount of the duty on documented legal transac-
tions when the latter is chargeable on the conclusion of a
purchase by an undertaking whose business activity consists of
buying and selling immovable property or purchasing immo-
vable property for development or letting, the chargeable event
or transaction, the basis of assessment and the taxable person in
respect of the duty on documented legal transactions being the
same as those in respect of value added tax, which is chargeable
simultaneously in respect of the same purchase?

(1) OJ L 145, p. 1; EE 09/01, p. 54.

1. Must Articles 49 EC and 56 EC be interpreted as meaning
that,
in cases where foreign savings balances, or income
therefrom, are not disclosed to the tax authorities of a
Member State, those articles do not prevent that Member
State from applying a statutory rule which,
in order to
compensate for the lack of effective means of monitoring
foreign credit balances, provides for a recovery period of
twelve years, whereas a recovery period of five years applies
in the case of savings balances, or income therefrom, held in
that Member State, in which such effective means do exist?

2. Does it make a difference to the answer to Question 1
whether the credit balances are held in a Member State in
which banking secrecy applies?

3. If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, do Articles 49 EC
and 56 EC similarly not preclude a fine for failure to disclose
income or capital on which tax has been subsequently recov-
ered from being determined as a proportion of the amount
recovered over that longer period?