ORDER OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
6 December 2006 (*)
(Request that the oral procedure be reopened)
In Case C-446/04,
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (United Kingdom), made by decision of 13 October 2004, received at the Court on 22 October 2004, in the proceedings
Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation
v
Commissioners of Inland Revenue,
THE COURT (Grand Chamber),
composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and E. Juhász, Presidents of Chambers, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet and M. Ilešič, Judges,
Advocate General: V. Trstenjak,
Registrar: R. Grass,
after hearing the Advocate General,
makes the following
Order
1 The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC, together with Articles 4(1) and 6 of 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 (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6).
2 The reference has been made in proceedings between companies resident in the United Kingdom and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue concerning the tax treatment of dividends received from companies which are not resident in that Member State.
3 The main proceedings are part of a group litigation concerning franked investment income. The cases selected by the national court as test cases for the purposes of the present reference concern claims brought by companies resident in the United Kingdom which form part of the British American Tobacco group (‘the claimants in the main proceedings’).
4 The Court heard the oral observations of the claimants in the main proceedings, the United Kingdom Government and Ireland, as well as the Commission of the European Communities, at the hearing on 29 November 2005. The oral procedure was closed on 6 April 2006 following the delivery of the Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed.
5 By letter of 27 November 2006, the United Kingdom Government requested the Court to reopen the procedure.
6 In support of its request, the United Kingdom Government argues that, in the light of a recent judgment of the House of Lords (United Kingdom), the financial implications that would arise for the United Kingdom from an interpretation of Community law in the manner proposed by the claimants in the main proceedings could be more significant than the United Kingdom Government had suggested at the hearing in support of its application for a limitation on the temporal effects of the judgment to be delivered in these proceedings. A reopening of the oral and/or written procedure is therefore necessary, in its view, unless the Court were to interpret Community law in the manner proposed by that Government or if the Court were to accept that there should be a limitation on the temporal effects of its judgment.
7 The Court may of its own motion, on a proposal from the Advocate General or at the request of the parties order the reopening of the oral procedure, in accordance with Article 61 of its Rules of Procedure, if it considers that it lacks sufficient information or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties (see Joined Cases C-270/97 and C‑271/97 Deutsche Post [2000] ECR I-929, paragraph 30; Case C-309/99 Wouters and Others [2002] ECR I-1577, paragraph 42; and Case C-309/02 Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft and S. Spitz [2004] ECR I-11763, paragraph 22).
8 In the circumstances of the present case, however, the Court, after hearing the Advocate General, considers that it is in possession of all the facts necessary for it to answer the questions referred and that those facts have been the subject of argument presented before it.
9 The request of the United Kingdom Government seeking the reopening of the procedure must therefore be rejected.
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby orders:
The request of the United Kingdom Government seeking the reopening of the procedure is rejected.
[Signatures]