EN
4.7.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 257/7
Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: RR, JG Intervener: Spetsializirana prokuratura
Operative part of the judgment 1.
Article 8(1) of Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, where property is frozen as the instrumentalities or alleged proceeds of an offence, the owner of that property, a third party acting in good faith, has no right, during the judicial phase of the criminal proceedings, to apply to the competent court for the return of that property. 2.
Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/42 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the confiscation of property belonging to a third party acting in good faith and used as an instrumentality of an offence, even where that property has been made available by that third party for the permanent use of the accused person.
(1)
OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Schneider Electric SE and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance (Case C-556/20) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 90/435/EEC — Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — Article 4 and Article 7(2) — Prevention of economic double taxation of dividends) (2022/C 257/09) Language of the case: French Referring court Conseil d’État
Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Schneider Electric SE, Axa SA, BNP Paribas SA, Engie SA, Orange SA, L’Air Liquide, société anonyme pour l’étude et l’exploitation des procédés Georges Claude Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance
Operative part of the judgment Article 4(1) 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 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation — which provides that a parent company is liable for an advance payment of tax in the event of a redistribution to its shareholders of profits paid by its subsidiaries which gives rise to the allocation of a tax credit, where those profits have not been subject to corporation tax at the ordinary rate — where the sums due in respect of that advance payment of tax exceed the 5 % ceiling provided for in Article 4(2) of that directive.
Such an advance payment of tax is not covered by Article 7(2) of that directive.
(1)
OJ C 9, 11.1.2021