CELEX: 62014CB0578
Language: en
Date: 2015-06-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-578/14: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corporation taxes — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 1(2) and Article 4(2) — Parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — Common system of taxation — Deduction of taxable profits of the parent company — Factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Insufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)

20.7.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 236/21
            
         Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-578/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Corporation taxes - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 1(2) and Article 4(2) - Parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Common system of taxation - Deduction of taxable profits of the parent company - Factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling - Insufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 236/30)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV
   
      Defendant: Belgische Staat
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   The request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium), by Decision of 28 November 2014, is manifestly inadmissible.
   
      (1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.