Case C-361/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven) — Feinchemie Schwebda GmbH, Bayer CropScience AG v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (Plant protection products — Authorisation to place on the market — Ethofumesate — Directives 91/414/EEC and 2002/37/EC — Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 — Application for reopening of the oral procedure)
Date: 2008-05-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, market approval, pharmaceutical product, plant health product

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/5

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber) in Case T-279/02 Degussa AG v Commission, in
which the Court dismissed in part the action seeking annulment
of Commission Decision 2003/674/EC of 2 July 2002 relating
to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (OJ 2003 L 255, p. 1) —
Cartel concerning the market in methionine — Requirements of
the nulla poena sine lege principle in relation to the system of
fines laid down by Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62.

— Interpretation of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 for implementing Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes
to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English
Special Edition, Series I, Chapter 1972 (I), p. 159) — Interpreta-
tion of Article 39 EC — Interpretation of general principles —
Child benefit for dependent children — Suspension of benefits
paid in the State of residence — Right to benefits of the same
type in the State of employment.

Operative part of the judgment

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Evonik Degussa GmbH is ordered to bear the costs.

3. The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 190 of 12.8.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 May 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Köln (Germany)) — Brigitte Bosmann v Bundesagentur für
Arbeit — Familienkasse Aachen

(Case C-352/06) (1)

(Social security — Child benefit — Suspension of entitlement
to benefits — Article 13(2)(a)
of Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 —
Legislation applicable — Granting of benefits in the Member
State of residence which is not the competent Member State)

(2008/C 171/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brigitte Bosmann

Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Aachen

Re:

Reference for a Preliminary Ruling — Finanzgericht Köln —
Interpretation of Article 13(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
and to members of their families moving within the Community
(OJ, English Special Edition Series I, Chapter 1971 (II), p. 416)

Operative part of the judgment

families moving within the Community,

1. Article 13(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
to self-employed persons and to members of
employed persons,
their
in the version
amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005,
does not preclude a migrant worker, who is subject to the social
security scheme of the Member State of employment, from receiving,
pursuant to the national legislation of the Member State of resi-
dence, child benefit in the latter State.

2. It is for the referring court to determine whether the fact that a
worker, in the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings,
returns at the end of each working day to the family residence in
the Member State concerned is relevant for the purposes of deciding
whether such a worker satisfies the requirements for the grant of
the child benefit in question in that State pursuant to its legisla-
tion.

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven) — Feinchemie Schwebda
GmbH, Bayer CropScience AG v College voor de toelating
van bestrijdingsmiddelen

(Case C-361/06) (1)

(Plant protection products — Authorisation to place on the
market — Ethofumesate — Directives 91/414/EEC and
2002/37/EC — Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 — Application
for reopening of the oral procedure)

(2008/C 171/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

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