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
Finanzamt Linz v Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz (C-66/14)
Judgment
Consideration of the questions referred
The second question
30

Finanzamt Linz v Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz (C-66/14)

Judgment of 6 Oct 2015law://eu/cjeu/2014/c-66-14/para_30@2026-11-10

30Such a difference in treatment 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 (see, inter alia, judgment in Nordea Bank, C‑48/13, EU:C:2014:2087, paragraph 23).

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

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fourth Chamber
Case: C-66/14 · ECLI:EU:C:2015:661
Decided: 6 Oct 2015
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)
Applicant: Finanzamt Linz
Defendant: Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz
Rapporteur: A. Prechal
Advocate General: J. Kokott
Bench: 5 judges
L. Bay Larsen, K. Jürimäe, J. Malenovský, M. Safjan, A. Prechal
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62014CJ0066

Topics

Freedom of establishment State aid

History · 1 version

6 Oct 2015Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions
Cited by 13: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG v Finanzamt Feldkirch (C-625/17); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (T-14/21); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (T-769/20); Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) v European Commission (T-332/21); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (T-333/21); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (T-225/21); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (T-737/20); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (T-111/21); Ryanair DAC and Laudamotion GmbH v European Commission (T-677/20); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (T-628/20); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (T-378/20); Ryanair DAC v European Commission (T-379/20); Masco Denmark ApS and Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet (C-593/14)2 provisions
Cites 12: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)4 provisions; Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna v Josef Grünewald (C-559/13); Ufficio IVA di Piacenza v Belvedere Costruzioni Srl (C-500/10); European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (C-269/09); Air Liquide Industries Belgium SA v Ville de Seraing and Province de Liège (C-393/04, C-41/05); European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C-172/13); DI. VI. Finanziaria di Diego della Valle & C. SapA v Administration des contributions en matière d’impôts (C-380/11); Rewe Zentralfinanz eG v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte (C-347/04); Nordea Bank Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet (C-48/13)2 provisions; P Oy (C-6/12); European Commission v Republic of Finland (C-342/10); X Holding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-337/08)