- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
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
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008CN0102
62008CN0102
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
7.6.2008
Official Journal of the European Union
C 142/12
(Case C-102/08)
(2008/C 142/19)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
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) 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.