Case C-182/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2008 — Glaxco Wellcome GmbH & Co v Finanzamt München II
Date: 2008-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company with share capital, interpretation of the law, shareholder, tax law, tax on investment income, tax relief

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?