Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (C-446/04)
Judgment
The questions referred
Question 4
162

Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (C-446/04)

Judgment of 12 Dec 2006law://eu/cjeu/2004/c-446-04/para_162@2026-11-11

162As the claimants in the main proceedings point out, the fact that a national scheme which restricts the freedoms of movement is optional does not mean that it is not incompatible with Community law.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Grand Chamber
Case: C-446/04 · ECLI:EU:C:2006:774
Decided: 12 Dec 2006
Procedure: Preliminary reference
Applicant: Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation
Defendant: Commissioners of Inland Revenue
Rapporteur: K. Lenaerts
Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed
Bench: 11 judges
V. Skouris, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilešič
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62004CJ0446

Topics

Freedom of establishment Free movement of capital

History · 1 version

12 Dec 2006Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)3 provisions
Interpreted by the courts in 1: Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (C-35/11)
Cited by 13: Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. v Council of the European Union (C-45/15 P); Lexel AB v Skatteverket (C-484/19); Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat (C-39/16); Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG v Finanzamt Feldkirch (C-625/17)2 provisions; European Commission v Hungary (C-78/18); Gemeente Dinkelland v Ontvanger van de Belastingdienst/Grote ondernemingen, kantoor Zwolle (C-674/22); Michael Schütte v Finanzamt Brilon (C-453/22); Cargill Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (C-360/18); X-GmbH v Finanzamt Stuttgart - Körperschaften (C-135/17); European Commission v French Republic (C-416/17)4 provisions; EV v Finanzamt Lippstadt (C-685/16); X BV and X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-398/16, C-399/16); The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (C-628/15)9 provisions
Cites 22: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)4 provisions; Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v Italian Republic (C-6/90, C-9/90); Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others (C-46/93, C-48/93); C. Baars v Inspecteur der Belastingen Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gorinchem (C-251/98); Klaus Konle v Republik Österreich (C-302/97); Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG and Rewe-Zentral AG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland (33/76); Cadbury Schweppes plc and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (C-196/04); Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States; Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty; The Queen v H. M. Treasury, ex parte British Telecommunications plc (C-392/93); Ministério Público and Fazenda Pública v Epson Europe BV (C-375/98); Gerhard Köbler v Republik Österreich (C-224/01); Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) v Kenneth Hall Colmer (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) (C-264/96); Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) (C-446/03); Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v SpA San Giorgio (199/82); Metallgesellschaft Ltd and Others, Hoechst AG and Hoechst (UK) Ltd v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and HM Attorney General (C-397/98, C-410/98); Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v Finanzamt Aachen-Innenstadt (C-307/97); Edilizia Industriale Siderurgica Srl (Edis) v Ministero delle Finanze (C-231/96); Heirs of M. E. A. van Hilten-van der Heijden v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (C-513/03); Staatssecretaris van Financiën v B.G.M. Verkooijen (C-35/98); Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation; The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd (C-5/94)