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
Amurta SGPS v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Amsterdam (C-379/05)
Judgment
The second question referred
The substance
78

Amurta SGPS v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Amsterdam (C-379/05)

Judgment of 8 Nov 2007law://eu/cjeu/2005/c-379-05/para_78@2026-11-12

78Accordingly, the Kingdom of the Netherlands cannot rely on the existence of a tax advantage granted unilaterally by another Member State in order to escape its obligations under the Treaty.

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · First Chamber
Case: C-379/05 · ECLI:EU:C:2007:655
Decided: 8 Nov 2007
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)
Applicant: Amurta SGPS
Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Amsterdam
Rapporteur: E. Levits
Advocate General: P. Mengozzi
Bench: 5 judges
P. Jann, R. Schintgen, A. Tizzano, A. Borg Barthet, E. Levits
Language: Dutch
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62005CJ0379

Topics

Free movement of capital

History · 1 version

8 Nov 2007Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)3 provisions
Cited by 13: LBI hf v Kepler Capital Markets SA and Frédéric Giraux (C-85/12)2 provisions; ACC Silicones Ltd. v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (C-572/20)3 provisions; European Commission v Portuguese Republic (C-503/14); J.B.G.T. Miljoen and Others v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-10/14, C-14/14, C-17/14)2 provisions; Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie (C-485/12)2 provisions; Guido Imfeld and Nathalie Garcet v État belge (C-303/12)2 provisions; Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat (C-350/11)2 provisions; European Commission v Republic of Finland (C-342/10)2 provisions; European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (C-387/11)2 provisions; X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-498/10)2 provisions; Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of FIM Santander Top 25 Euro Fi (C‑338/11) v Directeur des résidents à l'étranger et des services généraux and Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of Cartera Mobiliaria SA SICAV (C‑339/11 to C‑347/11) and Others v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics, de la Fonction publique et de la Réforme de l’État (C-338/11, C-339/11, C-340/11, C-341/11, C-342/11, C-343/11, C-344/11, C-345/11, C-346/11, C-347/11)2 provisions; Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA v Administración General del Estado (C-157/10)2 provisions; European Commission v Republic of Hungary (C-253/09)
Cites 24: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; PreussenElektra AG v Schhleswag AG, in the presence of Windpark Reußenköge III GmbH and Land Schleswig-Holstein (C-379/98); Doris Salzmann (C-300/01); Federico Cipolla v Rosaria Fazari, née Portolese and Stefano Macrino and Claudia Capoparte v Roberto Meloni (C-94/04, C-202/04); Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (C-524/04); Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (C-446/04); Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (C-9/02); Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) (C-446/03); J. van der Weerd and Others, H. de Rooy sr. and H. de Rooy jr., Maatschap H. en J. van ’t Oever and Others and B. J. van Middendorp v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (C-222/05, C-223/05, C-224/05, C-225/05); Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v Finanzamt Aachen-Innenstadt (C-307/97); Oy AA (C-231/05); Petri Manninen (C-319/02); Staatssecretaris van Financiën v B.G.M. Verkooijen (C-35/98); Mr and Mrs Robert Gilly v Directeur des services fiscaux du Bas-Rhin (C-336/96); N v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Oost/kantoor Almelo (C-470/04); Margaretha Bouanich v Skatteverket (C-265/04); J. E. J. Blanckaert v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (C-512/03); Rewe Zentralfinanz eG v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte (C-347/04); Athinaïki Zythopoiia AE v Elliniko Dimosio (C-294/99); Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (C-300/90); Hanns-Martin Bachmann v Belgian State (C-204/90); Denkavit Internationaal BV and Denkavit France SARL v Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (C-170/05); 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