Case C-462/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 27 October 2008 — Ümit Bekleyen v Land Berlin
Date: 2008-10-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, interpretation of the law, parental responsibility, residence permit, vocational training, workplace

C 19/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.1.2009

Questions referred

1. Does Community law preclude a national authority — in
order to avoid discriminating against foreign equity hold-
ings which, unlike domestic (Austrian) equity holdings, are
not tax exempt under legislation until the size of the equity
holding reaches 25 % (under present legislation 10 %) —
from applying the credit method because the Austrian
Verwaltungsgerichtshof
(Administrative Court) has ruled
that this outcome is closest to the (hypothetical) intention
of
the legislature but not simultaneously permitting a
deduction to be carried forward to subsequent years or a
tax credit to be given for a loss year with regard, firstly, to
the corporation tax to be credited and, secondly, to the
withholding tax to be credited?

1.1 If the answer to the first question should be in the affirma-
tive: Does Community law preclude a refusal to allow a
deduction to be carried forward or a tax credit to be given
in the case of non-member country dividends?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberver-
waltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on
27 October 2008 — Ümit Bekleyen v Land Berlin

(Case C-462/08)

(2009/C 19/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ümit Bekleyen

Defendant: Land Berlin

Question referred

Is the second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
the
Association to be interpreted as meaning that the right of access
to the labour market and the corresponding right of residence
following the completion of a vocational training course in the
host Member State can also be invoked in a situation in which
the child who was born in the host Member State, but after-
wards returned with her family to the family's country of origin,
returns on her own to the relevant Member State after she has
reached the age of majority in order to start a vocational
training course, at a moment occurring 10 years after her
parents, Turkish nationals who used to be employed in that
Member State, had permanently left that Member State?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia
Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 31 October 2008
— Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España
(SGAE) v Padawan, S.L. and Entidad de Gestión de
(EGEDA),
Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales

intervener

(Case C-467/08)

(2009/C 19/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España
(SGAE)

Defendant: Padawan, S.L.

Other party: Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores
Audiovisuales (EGEDA)

Questions referred

1. Does the concept of ‘fair compensation’ in Article 5(2)(b) of
Directive 2001/29 (1) entail harmonisation,
irrespective of
the Member States' right to choose the system of collection
which they deem appropriate for the purposes of giving
effect to the right to fair compensation of intellectual prop-
erty rightholders affected by the adoption of
the private
copying exception or limitation?

2. Regardless of

the system used by each Member State to
calculate fair compensation, must that system ensure a fair
balance between the persons affected, the intellectual prop-
erty rightholders affected by the private copying exception,
to whom the compensation is owed, on the one hand, and
the persons directly or indirectly liable to pay the compensa-
tion, on the other, and is that balance determined by the
reason for the fair compensation, which is to mitigate the
harm arising from the private copying exception.?

3. Where a Member State opts for a system of charging or
levying in respect of digital reproduction equipment, devices
and media,
in accordance with the aim pursued by
Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 and the context of that
provision, must
that charge (the fair compensation for
private copying) necessarily be linked to the presumed use of
those equipment and media for making reproductions
covered by the private copying exception, with the result that
the application of the charge would be justified where it may
be presumed that the digital reproduction equipment, devices
and media are to be used for private copying, but not other-
wise?