Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008CN0102

Case C-102/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2008 — SALIX Grundstücks-Vermietungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekt Offenbach KG v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Süd

OJ C 142, 7.6.2008, p. 12–13 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

7.6.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/12


Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 5 March 2008 — SALIX Grundstücks-Vermietungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekt Offenbach KG v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Süd

(Case C-102/08)

(2008/C 142/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SALIX Grundstücks-Vermietungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekt Offenbach KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Süd

Questions referred

1.

May the Member States ‘treat’ activities of States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law which are exempt from tax under Article 13 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC) as activities in which they engage as public authorities within the meaning of the fourth subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (Directive 77/388/EEC) (1) only where the Member States make express legal provision to that effect?

2.

Can ‘significant distortions of competition’ within the meaning of the fourth subparagraph in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes exist only where treatment of a body governed by public law as a non-taxable person would lead to significant distortions of competition to the detriment of competing private taxable persons or also where treatment of a body governed by public law as a non-taxable person would lead to significant distortions of competition to its detriment?


(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


Top