Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62007CA0418

    Case C-418/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat — France) — Société Papillon v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la function publique (Freedom of establishment — Direct taxation — Corporation tax — Group taxation regime — Resident parent company — Resident sub-subsidiaries held through a non-resident subsidiary)

    OJ C 19, 24.1.2009, p. 8–8 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    24.1.2009   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 19/8


    Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat — France) — Société Papillon v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la function publique

    (Case C-418/07) (1)

    (Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Corporation tax - Group taxation regime - Resident parent company - Resident sub-subsidiaries held through a non-resident subsidiary)

    (2009/C 19/13)

    Language of the case: French

    Referring court

    Conseil d'Etat

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Société Papillon

    Defendant: Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la function publique

    Re:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'Etat (France) — Interpretation of Articles 43 and 48 EC — Restriction on freedom of establishment and possible justification for a tax scheme making a distinction depending on whether the French sub-subsidiary of a parent company (also established in France) is held through a subsidiary established in that Member State or established in another Member State and not subject to French corporation tax — Justification based on the coherence of the tax system

    Operative part of the judgment

    Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State by virtue of which a group tax regime is made available to a parent company which is resident in that Member State and holds subsidiaries and sub-subsidiaries which are also resident in that State, but is unavailable to such a parent company if its resident sub-subsidiaries are held through a subsidiary which is resident in another Member State.


    (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


    Top