Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62006CB0415

Case C-415/06: Order of the Court of 6 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer clearly able to be deduced from case-law — Free movement of capital — Taxation on income — Company having permanent establishments in a non-Member State — Account taken of losses incurred by those establishments)

IO C 51, 23.2.2008, p. 29–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/29


Order of the Court of 6 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann

(Case C-415/06) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Answer clearly able to be deduced from case-law - Free movement of capital - Taxation on income - Company having permanent establishments in a non-Member State - Account taken of losses incurred by those establishments)

(2008/C 51/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)

Parties

Applicant: Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC, 57(1) EC and 58 EC — Deduction from the taxable profits of a German company of losses resulting from the activity of a permanent establishment in a non-member country — Deduction refused on the basis of a bilateral double taxation convention concluded with that non-member country

Operative part of the order

A national system of taxation under which a company having its head office in a Member State, when determining its results, cannot deduct losses incurred by an establishment in a non-Member State fundamentally affects the exercise of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Articles 43 EC to 48 EC. Those provisions cannot be relied upon in a situation involving such an establishment in a non-Member State.


(1)  OJ C 326, 31.12.2006.


Top