CELEX: C2007/211/39
Language: en
Date: 2007-09-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-303/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus, Finland lodged on 29 June 2007 — Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha Oy

8.9.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 211/21
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus, Finland lodged on 29 June 2007 — Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha Oy
   (Case C-303/07)
   (2007/C 211/39)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus, Finland
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha Oy
   
      Other parties: Uudenmaan verovirasto and Helsingin kaupunki
   Question referred
   Are Articles 43 EC and 48 EC and Articles 56 EC and 58 EC to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to safeguard the fundamental freedoms set out therein, an osakeyhtiö (company limited by shares) or sijoitusrahasto (investment fund) constituted under Finnish law and a SICAV constituted under Luxembourg law are to be regarded as comparable despite the fact that a form of company corresponding exactly to a SICAV is not recognised in Finnish legislation, having regard, first, to the fact that a SICAV, which is a company under Luxembourg law, is not mentioned in the list of companies referred to in Article 2(a) of Directive 90/435/EEC (1), with which the Finnish withholding tax legislation applicable in the present case is consistent, and, second, to the fact that a SICAV is exempt from income tax under domestic Luxembourg tax legislation? Is it therefore contrary to the above articles of the EC Treaty for a SICAV resident in Luxembourg which is the recipient of a dividend not to be exempt from withholding tax charged in Finland on dividends?
   
      (1)  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 Sates, OJ L 225, 20.8.1990. p. 6.