- 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
Joined Cases C-478/19 and C-479/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Agenzia delle Entrate (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Closed-ended mutual investment funds — Open-ended mutual investment funds — Investments in real estate — Mortgage registration tax and land registry fees — Tax advantage granted only to closed-ended real estate investment funds — Difference in treatment — Comparability of situations — Objective criteria of differentiation)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0478
62019CA0478
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 84/4
(Joined Cases C-478/19 and C-479/19) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Closed-ended mutual investment funds - Open-ended mutual investment funds - Investments in real estate - Mortgage registration tax and land registry fees - Tax advantage granted only to closed-ended real estate investment funds - Difference in treatment - Comparability of situations - Objective criteria of differentiation)
(2022/C 84/04)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH
Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate
Operative part of the judgment
Article 56 EC (now, after amendment, Article 63 TFEU) must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which restricts the benefit of the reduction in mortgage registration tax and in land registry fees solely to closed-ended real estate funds, to the exclusion of open-ended real estate funds, provided that those two categories of fund are in objectively comparable situations, unless such a difference in treatment is justified by the objective of limiting systemic risks on the real estate market.
(*)
Language of the case: Italian.
OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.