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
European Commission v Republic of Finland (C-342/10)
Judgment
The action
Substance
49

European Commission v Republic of Finland (C-342/10)

Judgment of 8 Nov 2012law://eu/cjeu/2010/c-342-10/para_49@2026-11-11

49For an argument based on such a justification to succeed, a direct link must be established between the tax advantage concerned and the offsetting of that advantage by a particular tax levy (see Case C‑380/11 DI. VI. Finanziaria di Diego della Valle & C. [2012] ECR, paragraph 47 and the case‑law cited).

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fourth Chamber
Case: C-342/10 · ECLI:EU:C:2012:688
Decided: 8 Nov 2012
Procedure: Infringement action
Applicant: European Commission
Defendant: Republic of Finland
Rapporteur: A. Prechal
Advocate General: E. Sharpston
Bench: 5 judges
L. Bay Larsen, J.‑C. Bonichot, C. Toader, A. Prechal, E. Jarašiūnas
Language: Finnish
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62010CJ0342

Topics

Free movement of capital

History · 1 version

8 Nov 2012Reading

Connections

Cited by 10: XX v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (C-782/22); AllianzGI-Fonds AEVN v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (C-545/19)2 provisions; College Pension Plan of British Columbia v Finanzamt München Abteilung III (C-641/17)3 provisions; X-GmbH v Finanzamt Stuttgart - Körperschaften (C-135/17); X v Ministerraad (C-68/15); Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v Skatteverket (C-252/14); Finanzamt Linz v Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz (C-66/14); European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C-172/13); European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C-112/14); European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (C-600/10)
Cites 14: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató bt (C-210/06); DI. VI. Finanziaria di Diego della Valle & C. SapA v Administration des contributions en matière d’impôts (C-380/11); European Commission v Portuguese Republic (C-493/09); The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Philips Electronics UK Ltd (C-18/11); Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (C-446/04); Per Grønfeldt and Tatiana Grønfeldt v Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark (C-436/06); X Holding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-337/08); Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel BetriebsgmbH and Österreichische Salinen AG v Finanzamt Linz (C-436/08, C-437/08); European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (C-284/09); Amurta SGPS v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Amsterdam (C-379/05); 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); Ulrich Schröder v Finanzamt Hameln (C-450/09); European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (C-250/08)