Case C-439/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Dresden, Germany) — Energy management 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 (Internal market in electricity — Directive 2003/54/EC — Article 20(1) — Open access of third parties to electricity transmission and distribution systems)
Date: 2008-05-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, energy distribution, energy grid, energy supply, energy transport, gas, interpretation of the law

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

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/7

Re:

Re:

for

Reference
a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht
Dresden — Interpretation of Article 20(1) of Directive
2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of
26 June 2003 concerning common rules for
the internal
market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003
L 176, p. 37) — National legislation which excludes networks
wholly situated on the premises of an undertaking (Betriebs-
netze) from the principle of free access of third persons to elec-
tricity transport and distribution networks

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de Cassation (France)
— Interpretation of Articles 6(1), 18(1) and 19 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdic-
tion and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil
and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Rules on juris-
diction over individual contracts of employment — Situation of
a dismissed worker who had worked, in non-Member States, for
two companies in a group with their seats in two different
Member States

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the
internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC must
be interpreted as precluding a provision such as the first point of Para-
graph 110(1) of the Law on electricity and gas supply, referred to as
‘the Law on energy management’ (Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und
Gasversorgung (Energiewirtschaftsgesetz)) of 7 July 2005, which
exempts certain operators of energy supply systems from the obligation
to provide third parties with open access to those systems on the
grounds that they are located on a geographically connected operation
zone and that they predominantly serve to supply the energy needs of
the undertaking itself and of connected undertakings.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

The rule of special jurisdiction provided for in Article 6, point 1, of
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil
and commercial matters cannot be applied to a dispute falling under
Section 5 of Chapter II of that regulation concerning the jurisdiction
rules applicable to individual contracts of employment.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy
w Koszalinie, Republic of Poland) — Halina Nerkowska v
Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie

(Case C-499/06) (1)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 May 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
Laboratoires
cassation,

France) — Glaxosmithkline,

Glaxosmithkline v Jean-Pierre Rouard

(Disability pension granted to civilian victims of war or
repression — Condition requiring residence in national terri-
tory — Article 18(1) EC)

(Case C-462/06) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Section 5 of Chapter II —
Jurisdiction over
contracts of employment —
Section 2 of Chapter II — Special jurisdiction — Article 6,
point 1 — More than one defendant)

individual

(2008/C 171/11)

(2008/C 171/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie

Language of the case: French

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Applicant: Halina Nerkowska

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Kosza-
linie

Re:

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Glaxosmithkline, Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline

Defendant: Jean-Pierre Rouard

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Okręgowy w Kosza-
linie — Interpretation of Article 18 EC — Compatibility of a
national provision under which payment of a benefit granted to
victims of war and of its consequences is subject to a require-
ment of residence in national territory