CELEX: C1999/204/62
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-187/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of that court of 28 April 1999, in the case of Fazenda Pública and Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa, Lda

17.7.1999                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 204/31
2. In the alternative, must Articles 6 and 8a of the Treaty and        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
     Directive 96/93 of 29 October 1993 on the right of                by order of 16 April 1999 in the case of Riksskatteverket
     residence for students (2) be interpreted as permitting                                            vX
     exclusion of a student whose right of residence has
     been acknowledged from entitlement to benefits under a                                     (Case C-186/99)
     non-contributory social security benefit system such as the
     minimum means of subsistence, payable by the host                                          (1999/C 204/61)
     country and, if so, is that exclusion general and definitive
     in nature?                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities, by order of 16 April 1999, by the
                                                                       Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court), which was
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a
(1) Regulation of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Riksskatteverket v X on the
    movement for workers within the Community, OJ, English Special     following question:
    Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.                                         Under Article 7(8) of Law 1947:576 on State Income Tax, a
 2
( ) OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59.                                              Swedish public limited company is exempt from tax on
                                                                       dividends which it receives on shares in another Swedish
                                                                       public limited company if the shares do not constitute
                                                                       current assets and the total number of votes attached to the
                                                                       undertaking’s shares in the distributing undertaking at the end
                                                                       of the tax year is equal to, or more than, 25% of the
                                                                       number of votes attached to all the shares of the distributing
                                                                       undertaking. An undertaking of a Member State is also exempt
                                                                       from kupongsskatt in respect of dividends received from a
                                                                       Swedish public limited company if the undertaking owns 25 %
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten              or more of the share capital of the distributing company and
by order of 16 April 1999 in the case of Riksskatteverket              is a company within the meaning of the parent-subsidiary
                             v X, Y and Z                              directive. Is it compatible with applicable Community law, in
                                                                       particular with Article 52 in conjunction with Articles 6 and
                                                                       58 and Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty to apply a
                           (Case C-185/99)                             system under which a corresponding tax exemption does not
                                                                       apply to dividends accruing to a company which is domiciled
                                                                       in another Member State and which has a permanent establish-
                           (1999/C 204/60)                             ment in Sweden to which the dividends are attributable?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities, by order of 16 April 1999, by the
Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
                                                                       Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment
preliminary ruling in the case of Riksskatteverket v X, Y and Z
                                                                       of that court of 28 April 1999, in the case of Fazenda
on the following question:
                                                                            Pública and Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa, Lda
                                                                                                (Case C-187/99)
Under Article 7(8) of Law 1947:576 on State Income Tax, a
Swedish public limited company is exempt from tax on                                            (1999/C 204/62)
dividends which it receives on shares in another Swedish
public limited company if the shares do not constitute                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
current assets and the total number of votes attached to the           European Communities by a judgment of the Second Chamber
undertaking’s shares in the distributing undertaking at the end        of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Adminis-
of the tax year is equal to, or more than, 25 % of the                 trative Court) of 28 April 1999, which was received at the
number of votes attached to all the shares of the distributing         Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
undertaking. An undertaking of a Member State is also exempt           the case of Fazenda Pública v Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa,
from kupongsskatt in respect of dividends received from a              Lda., on the following questions:
Swedish public limited company if the undertaking owns 25 %            1. Is Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 (1)
or more of the share capital of the distributing company and                of 16 July 1985 concerned with the conditions (obli-
is a company within the meaning of the parent-subsidiary                    gations, rules) laid clown in the document granting the
directive. Is it compatible with applicable Community law, in               beneficiary of the arrangements authorisation for the use
particular with Article 52 in conjunction with Articles 6 and               (functioning) thereof?
58 and Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty to apply a
system under which a corresponding tax exemption does not              2. Or, on the contrary, is it concerned with the conditions,
apply to dividends accruing to a company which is domiciled                 requirements or bases for the issue of the inward processing
in another Member State and which has a permanent establish-                authorisation?
ment in Sweden to which the dividends are attributable?                3. Once the rate of yield has been fixed by the customs
                                                                            authority, may the latter unilaterally alter that rate on the
                                                                            ground that the holder of the authorisation, when making
                                                                            use of the arrangements, has in fact obtained a higher rate
                                                                            of yield than that initially envisaged and approved?
 ---pagebreak--- C 204/32                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        17.7.1999
4. Do the principle of legal certainty and the rules on                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sedgefield
     inward processing relief arrangements allow the competent           Magistrates’ Court , by order of that Court of 21 May
     customs authority unilaterally to alter the rate of yield           1999, in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme
     fixed in the processing authorisation if it is proved that                                     Edgar Hume
     the said customs authority has been monitoring and
     supervising the operation of the undertaking in question                                     (Case C-193/99)
     since the inception of the arrangements in Portugal (in
     1986)?                                                                                       (1999/C 204/64)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of 16 July 1985 on inward        European Communities by an order of the Sedgefield Magis-
    processing relief arrangements (OJ L 188 of 20.7.1985, p. 1).        trates’ Court, of 21 May 1999, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 25 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme Edgar Hume, on the
                                                                         following questions:
                                                                         1. Where, pursuant to Article 8(5) of Council Regulation
                                                                              3820/85/EEC (1) a driver who is entitled to do so elects to
                                                                              postpone his weekly rest period until the week following
                                                                              that in which it is due, must the driver take two weekly
                                                                              rest periods, consecutively and without break between
                                                                              them, in that following week?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  2. If the answer to question (1) is in the negative, must such
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 19 May 1999                          a driver nevertheless take two weekly rest periods in the
in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly Trafalgar House                         following week, or is he permitted to postpone, in turn,
         PLC) against Staatssecretaris van Financiën                          the weekly rest period for that second week to the next
                                                                              following week?
                           (Case C-191/99)
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on
                                                                             the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
                          (1999/C 204/63)                                    transport (OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 19 May 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 25 May 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly                 Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc
Trafalgar House PLC) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the             against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
following questions:                                                     Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case
                                                                         T-151/94 between British Steel plc and the Commission
1. Is it permissible under Articles 2(c) and (d) and 3 of Second                          of the European Communities
     Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 for a
     Member State to charge a legal person established in                                        (Case C-199/99 P)
     another Member State to insurance tax in respect of
     premiums paid to an insurer also established in another                                      (1999/C 204/65)
     Member State for the professional indemnity insurance of
     the minor subsidiary established in the Member State                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999
     making the levy?                                                    by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case T-151/94
2. Does it make any difference to the reply to Question 1 if             between British Steel plc and the Commission of the European
     the policy-holder is not the overall parent company but             Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
     some other company in the group (for example a captive              European Communities on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc,
     insurance company)?                                                 a company governed by the laws of England and Wales and
                                                                         whose registered office is at 15 Marylebone Road, London
                                                                         NW1 5JD, represented by Philip G.H. Collins and Matthew
3. Does it make any difference to the replies to Questions 1             Levitt, Solicitors of Lovell White Durrant, with an address for
     and 2 or to the interpretation of the terms ‘policy-holder’         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter,
     or ‘Member State where the risk is situated’ if the insurance       11 rue Goethe. B.P. 1107.
     premium relating to the insured risk is not (wholly or in
     part) invoiced to the minor subsidiary?                             The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (a) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in case
                                                                              T-151/94. British Steel plc v Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities, of 11 March 1999;