Case C-341/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Dortmund (Germany) lodged on 24 July 2008 — Dr Domnica Petersen v Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe
Date: 2008-07-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, anti-discriminatory measure, dentist, equal treatment, health policy, interpretation of the law

C 260/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.10.2008

Questions referred

1. Whether the withholding tax levied on the dividend adjust-
ment constitutes withholding tax on profits prohibited under
Article 5 of Directive 90/435/EEC (1),

2. Whether the protective clause referred to in Article 7(2) of
that Directive applies, in particular whether Article 7(2) of
Directive 435/90/EEC of 23 July 1990 must be interpreted
as meaning that a Member State may decide not to apply the
exemption referred to in Article 5(1) of the Directive in the
case that the State of residence of the parent company grants
the latter a tax credit by virtue of a bilateral convention.

(1) OJ L 225, p. 6.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords
(United Kingdom) lodged on 23 July 2008 — The Queen
(on the application of M) (FC) v Her Majesty's Treasury
and two other actions

(Case C-340/08)

(2008/C 260/13)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
Dortmund (Germany)
lodged on 24 July 2008 —
Dr Domnica Petersen v Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte
für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe

(Case C-341/08)

(2008/C 260/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgericht Dortmund

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dr Domnica Petersen

Defendant: Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk
Westfalen-Lippe

Language of the case: English

Questions referred

Referring court

House of Lords

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen (on the application of M) (FC)

Defendant: Her Majesty's Treasury and two other actions

Question referred

Does Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (1)
apply to the provision by the State of social security or social
assistance benefits to the spouse of a person designated by the
Sanctions Committee established pursuant to United Nations
Resolution 1267 (1999) on the ground only that the spouse
lives with the designated person and will or may use some of
the money to pay for goods and services which the latter will
consume or from which he will benefit?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing
certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons
and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network
and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001
prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan,
strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and
other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan
(OJ L 139, p. 9).

1. May the statutory regulation of a maximum age limit for
admission to practice a profession (here: to work as a panel
dentist) be an objective and reasonable measure to protect a
legitimate aim (here: the health of patients insured under the
statutory health insurance scheme) and an appropriate and
necessary means of achieving that aim within the meaning of
Article 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC if it is derived solely from
an assumption (1), based on ‘general experience’,
that a
general drop in performance occurs from a certain age,
without any account being taken of the individual perfor-
mance of the person in question?

2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, may a
legitimate (legislative) aim within the meaning of Article 6 of
Directive 2000/78/EC (here: the protection of the health of
patients
statutory health insurance
scheme) be taken to exist even where that aim was entirely
irrelevant to the national
legislature in the exercise of its
legislative discretion?

insured under

the

3. If Questions 1 and 2 are to be answered in the negative, may
a law enacted prior to the adoption of Directive 2000/78/EC
which is incompatible with that directive be disapplied, by
the primacy of European law, even where the
virtue of
national
law transposing the directive (here: Allgemeines
Gleichbehandlungsgesetz — General Law on equal treatment)
makes no provision for such a legal consequence in the
event of a breach of the prohibition of discrimination?

(1) OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.