Impacto Azul Lda v BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários SA and Others.
Date: 2013-06-20
17. As regards the argument that the dispute in the main proceedings relates to a purely internal situation, it is for the Court to assess whether it has jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation of the provision in question (see, to that effect, Case C‑380/05 Centro Europa 7  [2008] ECR I‑349, paragraph 64; Case C‑384/08 Attanasio Group  [2010] ECR I‑2055, paragraph 22; and Case C‑245/09 Omalet  [2010] ECR I‑13771, paragraph 10).
18. The Court has declined jurisdiction where it was obvious that the provision of European Union law referred to the Court for interpretation was incapable of applying (Case C-567/07 Woningstichting Sint Servatius  [2009] ECR I‑9021, paragraph 43, and Omalet , paragraph 11).
19. According to settled case-law, the provisions of the TFEU on freedom of establishment do not apply to a situation, all the elements of which are confined within one single Member State (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑54/88, C‑91/88 and C‑14/89 Nino and Others [1990] ECR I‑3537, paragraph 11; Case C‑134/94 Esso Española [1995] ECR I‑4223, paragraph 17; and Case C‑389/05 Commission  v France  [2008] ECR I‑5397, paragraph 49).
26. According to settled case-law, the procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU is an instrument of cooperation between the Court and the national courts, by means of which the former provides the latter with the points of interpretation of European Union law which they need in order to decide the disputes before them (see, inter alia, Case C‑83/91 Meilicke  [1992] ECR I‑4871, paragraph 22; Case C‑445/06 Danske Slagterier [2009] ECR I‑2119, paragraph 65; and Case C‑307/10 The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys  [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 31).
27. In the context of that cooperation, questions concerning European Union law enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of European Union law that is sought is unrelated to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual and legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C‑94/04 and C‑202/04 Cipolla and Others  [2006] ECR I‑11421, paragraph 25; Joined Cases C‑570/07 and C‑571/07 Blanco Pérez and Chao Gómez  [2010] ECR I‑4629, paragraph 36; and The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys , paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
32. It should be stated at the outset that freedom of establishment includes, for companies or firms formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the European Union, the right to pursue their activities in other Member States through a subsidiary, a branch or an agency (Case C‑471/04 Keller Holding [2006] ECR I‑2107, paragraph 29; Case C‑414/06 Lidl Belgium  [2008] ECR I‑3601, paragraph 18; and Case C‑418/07 Papillon  [2008] ECR I‑8947, paragraph 15).
33. Article 49 TFEU requires the abolition of restrictions of the freedom of establishment. The provisions of the Treaty on freedom of establishment are aimed, according to their wording, at ensuring the benefit of national treatment in the host Member State. Moreover, according to settled case-law, Article 49 TFEU precludes any national measure which, even if applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, is liable to hinder or render less attractive the exercise by European Union nationals of the freedom of establishment that is guaranteed by the Treaty (see, to that effect, Case C‑371/10 National Grid Indus  [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraphs 35 and 36, and Case C‑84/11 Susisalo and Others  [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 31).
35. It should be pointed out that, having regard to the fact that the rules concerning corporate groups are not harmonised at European Union level, the Member States remain, in principle, competent to determine the law applicable to a debt of a related company. Thus, Portuguese law provides for the joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries, only in respect of parent companies having their seat in Portugal. As the Commission correctly points out, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, it is not contrary to Article 49 TFEU that a Member State may legitimately improve the treatment of claims of groups present on its territory (see, by analogy, Case 237/82 Jongeneel Kaas and Others  [1984] ECR 483, paragraph 20).