Case C-414/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Heilbronn (Freedom of establishment — Direct taxation — Taking account of losses incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a Member State and belonging to a company which has its registered office in another Member State)
Date: 2008-05-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: distribution business, double taxation, financial loss, interpretation of the law, tax on income, tax relief, tax system

C 171/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2008

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Feinchemie Schwebda GmbH, Bayer CropScience AG

Defendant: College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen

Applicant: Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Heilbronn

Intervener: Agrichem BV

Re:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven
— Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Commission Directive
2002/37/EC of 3 May 2002 amending Council Directive
91/414/EEC to include ethofumesate as an active substance
(OJ 2002 L 117, p. 10) — Obligation on Member States to
withdraw, before 1 September 2003, authorisation for any
product containing ethofumesate in the case where the authori-
sation holder does not have, or does not have access to, a
dossier satisfying the conditions set out in Annex II to Council
Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing
of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230,
p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Commission Directive 2002/37/EC of 3 May 2002
amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include ethofumesate as
an active substance must be interpreted as not requiring Member
States to terminate, before 1 September 2003, the authorisation of a
plant protection product containing ethofumesate on the ground that
the holder of that authorisation does not hold, or have access to, a
dossier satisfying the requirements set out in Annex II to Council
Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of
plant protection products on the market.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

the Court
for

(Fourth Chamber) of 15 May
Judgment of
2008 (reference
a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Lidl Belgium GmbH &
Co. KG v Finanzamt Heilbronn

(Case C-414/06) (1)

Preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of
Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Deduction from a German compa-
ny's taxable profits of losses resulting from the activities of a
permanent establishment in another Member State — Refusal of
such deduction on the basis of a bilateral convention concluded
with that other Member State for the purpose of preventing
double taxation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 43 EC does not preclude a situation in which a company estab-
lished in a Member State cannot deduct
from its tax base losses
relating to a permanent establishment belonging to it and situated in
another Member State, to the extent that, by virtue of a double taxa-
tion convention, the income of that establishment is taxed in the latter
Member State where those losses can be taken into account in the
taxation of
in future
accounting periods.

that permanent establishment

the income of

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

the Court

(Third Chamber) of 22 May
Judgment of
2008 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the
Oberlandesgericht Dresden, Germany) — Energy manage-
ment proceedings between citiworks AG (Intervening
party: Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und
Arbeit als Landesregulierungsbehörde), on the one hand,
and Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH and Bundesnetzagentur,
on the other

(Case C-439/06) (1)

(Internal market in electricity — Directive 2003/54/EC —
Article 20(1) — Open access of third parties to electricity
transmission and distribution systems)

(2008/C 171/10)

Language of the case: German

(Freedom of establishment — Direct
taxation — Taking
account of losses incurred by a permanent establishment situ-
ated in a Member State and belonging to a company which
has its registered office in another Member State)

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Dresden

(2008/C 171/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Applicant in the energy management proceedings

citiworks AG

Interveners in the energy management proceedings in support of the
applicant: Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und
Arbeit als Landesregulierungsbehörde,

Defendants in the energy management proceedings: Flughafen
Leipzig/Halle GmbH, Bundesnetzagentur