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
Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH v Finanzamt Sankt Augustin (C-388/14)
Judgment
Consideration of the questions referred
The first question
26

Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH v Finanzamt Sankt Augustin (C-388/14)

Judgment of 17 Dec 2015law://eu/cjeu/2014/c-388-14/para_26@2026-11-11

26Such a restriction is permissible only if it relates to situations which are not objectively comparable or if it is justified by an overriding reason in the public interest (judgment in Nordea Bank Danmark, C‑48/13, EU:C:2014:2087, paragraph 23 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 · Third Chamber
Case: C-388/14 · ECLI:EU:C:2015:829
Decided: 17 Dec 2015
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Finanzgericht Köln (Finance Court, Cologne, Germany)
Applicant: Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH
Defendant: Finanzamt Sankt Augustin
Rapporteur: C.G. Fernlund
Advocate General: M. Wathelet
Bench: 5 judges
M. Ilešič, C. Toader, A. Rosas, E. Jarašiūnas, C.G. Fernlund
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62014CJ0388

Topics

Freedom of establishment

History · 1 version

17 Dec 2015Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions
Cited by 10: Eqiom SAS, formerly Holcim France SAS and Enka SA v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (C-6/16)3 provisions; Finanzamt B v W AG (C-538/20); AURES Holdings a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (C-405/18)2 provisions; A/S Bevola and Jens W. Trock ApS v Skatteministeriet (C-650/16)6 provisions; Hornbach-Baumarkt-AG v Finanzamt Landau (C-382/16)2 provisions; Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (C-646/15)2 provisions; Wolfram Bechtel and Marie-Laure Bechtel v Finanzamt Offenburg (C-20/16); Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet (C-593/14); SECIL - Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento SA v Fazenda Pública (C-464/14); Charles Kohll and Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser v Directeur de l'administration des contributions directes (C-300/15)2 provisions
Cites 9: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Finanzamt für Körperschaften III in Berlin v Krankenheim Ruhesitz am Wannsee-Seniorenheimstatt GmbH (C-157/07); Nordea Bank Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet (C-48/13)2 provisions; Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) (C-446/03); National Grid Indus BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Rijnmond/kantoor Rotterdam (C-371/10); Oy AA (C-231/05); K (C-322/11); Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Heilbronn (C-414/06); European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C-172/13)