Case C-179/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 — Dler Jamal v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2008-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, government violence, interpretation of the law, residence permit, right of asylum

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 —
Ahmed Adem and Hamrin Mosa Rashi v Federal Republic
of Germany

(b) assessed having regard to the relaxation of the burden of

proof under Article 4(4) of Directive 2004/83?

(1) OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.

(Case C-178/08)

(2008/C 197/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ahmed Adem and Hamrin Mosa Rashi

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

1. Is Article 11(1)(e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of
29 April 2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that — apart
from the second clause of Article 1(C)(5) of the Convention
of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva
Convention on Refugees) — refugee status ceases to exist if
the refugee's well-founded fear of persecution within the
terms of Article 2(c) of that directive, on the basis of which
refugee status was granted, no longer exists and he also has
no other reason to fear persecution within the terms of
Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83?

2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: does the
cessation of refugee status under Article 11(1)(e) of Directive
2004/83 also require that,
in the country of the refugee's
nationality,

(a) an actor of protection within the meaning of Article 7(1)
of Directive 2004/83 be present, and is it sufficient in
that regard if protection can be assured only with the
help of multinational troops,

(b) the refugee should not be threatened with serious harm,
within the meaning of Article 15 of Directive 2004/83,
which leads to the granting of subsidiary protection
under Article 18 of that directive, and/or

(c) the security situation be stable and the general
conditions ensure a minimum standard of living?

living

3. In a situation in which the previous circumstances, on the
basis of which the person concerned was granted refugee
status, have ceased to exist, are new, different circumstances
founding persecution to be

(a) measured against the standard of probability applied for
recognising refugee status, or is another standard to be
applied in favour of the person concerned, and/or

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 —
Dler Jamal v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-179/08)

(2008/C 197/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dler Jamal

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

1. Is Article 11(1)(e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of
29 April 2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that — apart
from the second clause of Article 1(C)(5) of the Convention
of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva
Convention on Refugees) — refugee status ceases to exist if
the refugee's well-founded fear of persecution within the
terms of Article 2(c) of that directive, on the basis of which
refugee status was granted, no longer exists and he also has
no other reason to fear persecution within the terms of
Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83?

2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: does the
cessation of refugee status under Article 11(1)(e) of Directive
2004/83 also require that,
in the country of the refugee's
nationality,

(a) an actor of protection within the meaning of Article 7(1)
of Directive 2004/83 be present, and is it sufficient in
that regard if protection can be assured only with the
help of multinational troops,

(b) the refugee should not be threatened with serious harm,
within the meaning of Article 15 of Directive 2004/83,
which leads to the granting of subsidiary protection
under Article 18 of that directive, and/or

(c) the security situation be stable and the general
conditions ensure a minimum standard of living?

living

C 197/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2008

3. In a situation in which the previous circumstances, on the
basis of which the person concerned was granted refugee
status, have ceased to exist, are new, different circumstances
founding persecution to be

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank
's-Gravenhage lodged on 29 April 2008 — Latchways plc
and Eurosafe Solutions BV v Kedge Safety Systems BV and
Consolidated Nederland BV

(a) measured against the standard of probability applied for
recognising refugee status, or is another standard to be
applied in favour of the person concerned, and/or

(b) assessed having regard to the relaxation of the burden of

proof under Article 4(4) of Directive 2004/83?

(Case C-185/08)

(2008/C 197/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

(1) OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.

Referring court

Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
finanzhof (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2008 — Glaxco
Wellcome GmbH & Co v Finanzamt München II

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Latchways plc and Eurosafe Solutions BV

(Case C-182/08)

(2008/C 197/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Glaxco Wellcome GmbH & Co.

Defendant: Finanzamt München II

Question referred

Do Article 52 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 43 EC) or
Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) preclude legis-
lation of a Member State which, in the framework of a national
system of corporation tax credits, excludes the reduction in the
value of shares as a result of a profits distribution from the basis
of assessment for that tax when a taxpayer who is entitled to a
corporation tax credit has acquired shares in a company which
is fully taxable from a shareholder who is not entitled to a tax
credit, whereas had the acquisition taken place from a share-
holder who was entitled to a tax credit such a reduction in value
would have reduced the basis of assessment for the tax of the
purchaser?

Defendants: Kedge
Nederland BV

Safety

Systems BV and Consolidated

Questions referred

1. Do Class A 1 anchor devices within the meaning of
European standard EN 795 (which are intended to remain in
position permanently) fall exclusively within the scope of
Directive 89/106/EEC (1)?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, do these
anchor devices — possibly,
in that case, as an item of
personal protective equipment — fall within the scope of
Directive 89/686/EEC (2)?

3. If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the negative, is it
necessary, in the light of Annex II to Directive 89/686/EEC,
in particular point 3.1.2.2 thereof, to assess whether personal
protective equipment that is covered by that directive by
itself fulfils the basic requirements of that directive, or is it
necessary also to consider whether the anchor device to
which the protective equipment concerned is connected is
safe in the foreseeable conditions of use, as defined in
Annex II?

4. Does Community

law and,

[Decision]
93/465/EEC (3) allow for
the option of applying a CE
marking to an anchor device as referred to in Question 1 as
evidence of compliance with Directive 89/686/EEC and/or
Directive 89/106/EEC?

in particular,

5. If the answer to Question 4 is either wholly or partly in the
affirmative, what procedure(s) should be followed in deter-
mining compliance in respect of Directive 89/686/EEC
and/or Directive 89/106/EEC?

6. Is European standard EN 795 to be regarded — in respect of
anchor devices as referred to in Question 1 — as Com-
munity law to be interpreted by the Court of Justice of the
European Communities?