Case C-47/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 — Masdar (UK) Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Second paragraph of Article 288 EC — Action alleging unjust enrichment on the part of the Community — Community assistance programmes — Irregularities on the part of the co-contractor of the Commission — Services provided by a subcontractor — Non-payment — Risks inherent in economic activities — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty of care of the Community administration)
Date: 2008-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU programme, General Court (EU), Moldova, Russia, appeal, payment, provision of services, right of action

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/5

2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European

Communities;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ober-
verwaltungsgericht
für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
(Germany)) — Heinz Huber v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-524/06) (1)

(Protection of personal data — European citizenship — Prin-
ciple of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality —
Directive 95/46/EC — Concept of necessity — General proces-
sing of personal data relating to citizens of the Union who are
nationals of another Member State — Central register of
foreign nationals)

(2009/C 44/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heinz Huber

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberverwaltungsgericht
für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Interpretation of the first
paragraph of Article 12 EC, Article 17 EC, Article 18(1) EC and
the first paragraph of Article 43 EC, and of Article 7(e) of Direc-
tive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard
to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of
such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — National rules providing
for the general processing of personal data relating to citizens of
the other Member States in a national central register of foreign
nationals, which differ from the national rules relating to the
personal data of citizens of the State in question, which are
processed only in the municipal registers for declarations of resi-
dence

the provision of support to the national authorities responsible for
the application of the law relating to the right of residence does not
satisfy the requirement of necessity laid down by Article 7(e) of
the
Directive 95/46/EC of
Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement
of such data,
interpreted in the light of the prohibition on any
discrimination on grounds of nationality, unless:

the European Parliament and of

— it contains only the data which are necessary for the application

by those authorities of that legislation, and

— its centralised nature enables the legislation relating to the
right of residence to be more effectively applied as regards
Union citizens who are not nationals of that Member State.

It is for the national court to ascertain whether those conditions are
satisfied in the main proceedings.

The storage and processing of personal data containing individua-
lised personal information in a register such as the Central Register
of Foreign Nationals for statistical purposes cannot, on any basis,
be considered to be necessary within the meaning of Article 7(e) of
Directive 95/46.

2) Article 12(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes
the putting in place by a Member State, for the purpose of fighting
crime, of a system for processing personal data specific to Union
citizens who are not nationals of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December
2008 — Masdar (UK) Ltd v Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-47/07 P) (1)

(Appeal — Second paragraph of Article 288 EC — Action
alleging unjust enrichment on the part of the Community —
Community assistance programmes — Irregularities on the
part of the co-contractor of the Commission — Services
provided by a subcontractor — Non-payment — Risks
inherent in economic activities — Principle of the protection
of legitimate expectations — Duty of care of the Community
administration)

(2009/C 44/08)

Language of the case: English

Operative part of the judgment

1) A system for processing personal data relating to Union citizens
who are not nationals of the Member State concerned, such as that
put in place by the Law on the central register of foreign nationals
(Gesetz über das Ausländerzentralregister) of 2 September 1994,
as amended by the Law of 21 June 2005, and having as its object

Appellant: Masdar (UK) Ltd (represented by: A.P. Bentley, QC,
and P. Green, barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities (represented by:
acting as Agents)

the European
J. Enegren and M. Wilderspin,

Parties

C 44/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2009

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber) of 16 November 2006 in Case T-333/03 Masdar UK
Ltd v Commission of
the European Communities, dismissing as
unfounded an action for damages in respect of loss allegedly
suffered by the applicant following refusal by the Commission
for services which it claims to have provided in
to pay it
connection with two projects under the TACIS Programme in
Moldavia and Russia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Masdar (UK) Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour
d'appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge — SPF Finances
v Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA

(Case C-48/07) (1)

Meaning of holding in the capital of a subsidiary established in
another Member State — Whether holding a right of usufruct
over shareholdings is sufficient for tax exemption on dividends
received, or whether full ownership is needed.

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of a holding in the capital of a company of another
Member State, within the meaning of Article 3 of Council Directive
90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation
applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different
Member States, does not include the holding of shares in usufruct.

However, in compliance with the freedoms of movement guaranteed by
the EC Treaty, applicable to cross-border situations, when a Member
State, in order to avoid double taxation of received dividends, exempts
from tax both the dividends which a resident company receives from
another resident company in which it holds shares with full title and
those which a resident
resident
company receives
company in which it holds shares in usufruct, that Member State must
apply, for the purpose of exempting received dividends, the same treat-
ment to dividends received from a company established in another
Member State by a resident company holding shares with full title as
that which it applies to such dividends received by a resident company
which holds shares in usufruct.

from another

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

(Corporation taxes — Directive 90/435/EEC — Status of
parent company — Capital holding — Holding of shares in
usufruct)

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Tietosuojavaltuutettu v
Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy, Satamedia Oy

(2009/C 44/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État belge — SPF Finances

Defendant: Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'Appel de Liège —
Interpretation of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive
90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxa-
tion applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiary
companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) —

(Case C-73/07) (1)

(Directive 95/46/EC — Scope — Processing and flow of tax
data of a personal nature — Protection of natural persons —
Freedom of expression)

(2009/C 44/10)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tietosuojavaltuutettu

Defendants: Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy, Satamedia Oy