Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 October 2008 (references for preliminary rulings from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Alfonso Luigi Marra v Eduardo De Gregorio (C-200/07), Antonio Clemente (C-201/07) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — European Parliament — Leaflet issued by a Member of the European Parliament containing insulting remarks — Claim for non-pecuniary damages — Immunity of Members of the European Parliament)
Date: 2008-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, Member of the European Parliament, civil procedure, interpretation of the law, operation of the Institutions, parliamentary immunity

C 313/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.12.2008

Defendant: Krankenheim Ruhesitz am Wannsee-Seniorenheim-
statt GmbH

Parties to the main proceedings

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Inter-
the Agreement on the European
pretation of Article 31 of
Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 1) — Double taxation conven-
tion which provides for taxation of profits made by a branch
office in the State where it is established — Deduction from
taxable profit of company principal office of branch office
losses — No possibility for branch office to carry over fiscal
losses to a subsequent period of assessment — Reintegration by
State where company principal office established of
total
deducted losses of branch office

Operative part of the judgment

Article 31 of
the Agreement on the European Economic Area of
2 May 1992 does not preclude a national tax system which, after
having allowed the taking into account of losses incurred by a perma-
nent establishment situated in a State other than the one in which its
principal company is situated, for the purposes of calculating the tax
on that company's income, provides for a tax reintegration of those
losses at the time when that permanent establishment makes profits,
where the State where that same permanent establishment is situated
does not confer any right to carry forward losses incurred by a perma-
nent establishment belonging to a company established in another
State, and where, under a convention for the prevention of double taxa-
tion between the two States concerned, the income of such an entity is
exonerated from taxation in the State in which the principal company
has its seat.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 October
2008 (references for preliminary rulings from the Corte
suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Alfonso Luigi Marra v
Eduardo De Gregorio (C-200/07), Antonio Clemente
(C-201/07)

(Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — European Parliament
— Leaflet issued by a Member of the European Parliament
containing insulting remarks — Claim for non-pecuniary
the European
damages — Immunity

of Members

of

Parliament)

(2008/C 313/09)

Language of the cases: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Appellant: Alfonso Luigi Marra

Respondents:
Clemente (C-201/07)

Eduardo De Gregorio

(C-200/07), Antonio

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassa-
zione — Interpretation of Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privi-
leges and Immunities of the European Communities (OJ 1967
152, p. 13) and Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the
European Parliament (OJ 2005 L 44, p. 1) — Claim for non-
pecuniary damages in relation to insulting remarks made by a
Member of the European Parliament — Competence of the civil
court to rule as to the existence or otherwise of privilege in the
absence of a decision of the European Parliament

Operative part of the judgment

The Community rules relating to the immunity of Members of the
European Parliament must be interpreted as meaning that,
in an
action for damages brought against a Member of
the European
Parliament in respect of opinions he has expressed,

— where the national court which has to rule on such an action has
received no information regarding a request by that Member to the
European Parliament seeking defence of the immunity provided for
in Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of
the European Communities of 8 April 1965, it is not obliged to
request the European Parliament to give a decision on whether the
conditions for that immunity are met;

— where the national court is informed of the fact that that Member
has made a request to the European Parliament for defence of that
immunity, within the meaning of Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Proce-
dure of the European Parliament, it must stay the judicial proceed-
ings and request the European Parliament to issue its opinion as
soon as possible;

— where the national court considers that that Member enjoys the
immunity provided for in Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges
and Immunities of the European Communities,
it is obliged to
dismiss the action brought against the Member concerned.

(1) OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.