Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62009CN0035

Case C-35/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 January 2009 — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Paolo Speranza

OJ C 82, 4.4.2009, p. 16–16 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

4.4.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/16

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 January 2009 — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Paolo Speranza

(Case C-35/09)

(2009/C 82/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

Respondent: Paolo Speranza

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 69/335/EEC (1), which provides that an increase in the capital of a capital company by contribution of assets of any kind is to be subject to capital duty, to be interpreted as meaning that an actual contribution is to be taxable, but not a mere decision to increase the share capital which remains essentially unimplemented?

2.

Is Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 69/335/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the duty must be levied exclusively on the company to which the capital is contributed and not also on the public official who drafts or certifies the transaction?

3.

In any event, are the means of defence afforded to that public official by the Italian legislation consistent with the principle of proportionality, in light of the fact that, under Article 38 of Decree No 131/1986 of the President of the Republic, it is irrelevant whether the resolution to increase share capital is null and void or may be annulled, and repayment of the duty paid may be effected only after a civil judgment declaring the transaction null and void or annulling it has become final?

(1)  OJ, English Special Edition, 1969 (II), p. 412.

Top