CELEX: C2005/031/21
Language: en
Date: 2005-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-492/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg by decision of that court of 14 October 2004 in the case of Lasertec Gesellschaft für Stanzformen mbH (formerly Riess Laser Bandstahlschnitte GmbH) against Finanzamt Emmendingen

5.2.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 31/11
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg by decision of that court of 14 October 2004 in the case of Lasertec Gesellschaft für Stanzformen mbH (formerly Riess Laser Bandstahlschnitte GmbH) against Finanzamt Emmendingen
   (Case C-492/04)
   (2005/C 31/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Baden-Württemberg Finance Court) (Germany) of 14 October 2004, received at the Court Registry on 1 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lasertec Gesellschaft für Stanzformen mbH (formerly Riess Laser Bandstahlschnitte GmbH) against Finanzamt Emmendingen on the following questions:
   
               1.
            
            
               Is Article 57(1) EC to be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions of the movement of capital to or from third countries which ‘exist’ on 31 December 1993 are those for which the legislative process has already been completed by the national legislature on that date, or those which under the national legislation are already applicable on that date to existing factual situations?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is Article 56(1) EC in conjunction with Article 58 EC to be interpreted as meaning that the – partial – taxation as a distribution of profits of payments of interest by a capital company resident in a Member State to a loan provider in a third country who is at the same time a shareholder in the capital company is thereby prohibited because this is arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction of the free movement of capital between a Member State and a third country?