Case C-337/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 July 2008 — X Holding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2008-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: corporation tax, interpretation of the law, organisation, subsidiary, tax law

C 272/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.10.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

period

prescribed

The
of Directive
2004/107/EC expired on 15 February 2007. At the date on
which the present action was brought, that directive still had
not been fully transposed into national law.

transposition

for

(1) OJ 2005 L 23, p. 3.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
lodged on 21 July 2008 —
Nederlanden (Netherlands)

X Holding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-337/08)

(2008/C 272/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X Holding BV

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Must Article 43 EC, in conjunction with Article 48 EC, be inter-
preted as precluding national rules of a Member State, … which
allow a parent company and its subsidiary to opt to have the
tax for which they are liable levied on the parent company
established in that Member State as if
they were a single
taxpayer, but which reserve that option to companies which, for
the taxation of their profits, are subject to the fiscal jurisdiction
of the Member State concerned?

Action brought on 23 July 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-343/08)

(2008/C 272/16)

Language of the case: Czech

The Commission asks the Court to:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the domestic legal provisions
necessary to comply fully with Directive 2003/41/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on
the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational
retirement provision (1), and,
in particular, by failing to
implement Article 8, Article 9 in its entirety, Articles 13, 15
to 18 and 20(2) to (4) thereof, the Czech Republic has failed
to fulfil
in particular
those under Article 22(1) thereof;

its obligations under that directive,

— order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementing the Directive in the
domestic legal order expired on 23 September 2005.

(1) OJ 2003 L 235, p. 10.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy
w Kościanie (Republic of Poland) lodged on 24 July 2008
— Criminal proceedings against Tomasz Rubach

(Case C-344/08)

(2008/C 272/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Kościanie

Parties to the main proceedings

Prosecuting authority: Prokuratura Rejonowa w Kościanie (District
Prosecutor's Office, Kościan)

Defendant: Tomasz Rubach

Question referred

How should Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97
of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna
and flora by regulating trade therein (1) be properly interpreted,
that is to say, how, under Community law, may a keeper of
animals listed in Annex B (which are not amphibians, reptiles,
birds or mammals) prove satisfactorily that his specimens were
acquired or introduced into the Community in accordance with
the legislation in force with regard to wild fauna and flora in
the case where the provisions of national law do not govern
those matters?

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Šimerdová, N. Yerrell, acting as Agents)

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1.

Defendant: Czech Republic