Ακολούθω, το ικαστήριο διαpiίστωσε ότι η νοοθετική αυτή ρύθιση, κωλύοντα την piρακτική τη «υpiοκεφαλαιοpiοιήσεω» piροσφέρεται για την εpiίτευξη αυτού του σκοpiού, χωρί, όω, να αpiοφανθεί εpiί του piράγατι αναλογικού χαρακτήρα του έτρου αυτού, piαραpiέpiοντα το ζήτηα αυτό στο εθνικό δικαστήριο. Πάντω, εpiισήανε ότι η εθνική νοοθετική ρύθιση piρέpiει να θεωρηθεί ω αναλογική αν, piρώτον, ο φορολογούενο έχει τη δυνατότητα να piροσκοίσει, χωρί να υpiόκειται σε υpiερβολικού διοικητικού piεριορισού, τυχόν στοιχεία σχετικά ε του εpiορικού λόγου piου δικαιολογούν τη συγκεκριένη συναλλαγή, ώστε να καθίσταται δυνατή η εξέταση αντικειενικών και αληθών στοιχείων piροκειένου να piροσδιοριστεί η ύpiαρξη ια καθαρώ τεχνητή καταστάσεω για φορολογικού σκοpiού, και, δεύτερον, αν ο αναχαρακτηρισό των τόκων piου καταβλήθηκαν ω διανοή κερδών piεριορίζεται στο piοσοστό των τόκων αυτών piου υpiερβαίνει αυτό το οpiοίο θα καταβαλλόταν υpiό συνθήκε piλήρου ανταγωνισού.
Lastly, in Case C-202/06 P Cementbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission (judgment of 18 December 2007), the Court examined the eect of commitments proposed by the parties on the Commission’s competence in relation to concentrations. The Court noted that Regulation No 4064/89 (21) on the control of concentrations is based on the principle of a clear division of powers between the national and Community supervisory authorities. That division reects, in particular, a concern for legal certainty, which means that it must be possible to identify in a foreseeable manner the authority competent to examine a given concentration. For that reason, the Community legislature has laid down criteria that are both precise and objective allowing the determination of whether a concentration has the economic size necessary for it to have a‘Community dimension’and, accordingly, to fall within the exclusive competence of the Commission. In addition, the need for speed, which characterises the general scheme of Regulation No 4064/89 and which requires the Commission to comply with strict time limits for the adoption of the final decision, means that the Commission’s competence cannot be challenged at any time or be in a state of constant ux. The Court held, therefore, that while the Commission loses its competence to examine a concentration where the undertakings concerned completely abandon the proposed concentration, the position is otherwise where the parties do no more than propose partial amendments. Proposals of that kind could not have the eect of requiring the Commission to re-examine its competence without allowing the undertakings concerned signicantly to disturb the course of the proceedings and the eectiveness of the control which the legislature sought to put in place. The commitments proposed or adopted by undertakings are therefore so many matters which the Commission must take into account in its examination of the substantive question, that is to say, that of the compatibility or incompatibility of the concentration with the common market, but they cannot strip the Commission of its competence, since that is a matter which will have been determined in the first phase of the proceedings. It follows that the competence of the Commission to make findings in relation to a concentration must be established, as regards the whole of the proceedings, at a xed time, which must necessarily be closely related to the notication of the concentration. Taxation