Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/32

(Case C-481/12)

2013/C 9/53

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant and appellant: Juvelta UAB

Defendant and respondent: Lietuvos prabavimo rūmai

Questions referred

1.Must Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as prohibiting national legal rules under which, when seeking to sell on the market of a Member State of the European Union articles of gold imported from another Member State which are permitted to be put on the market of that Member State (of export), those articles must be stamped with a mark, of an independent assay office authorised by a Member State, which confirms that the article bearing it has been assayed by that office and in which information intelligible to consumers of the Member State of import concerning the article’s standard of fineness is specified, in circumstances where such information concerning the standard of fineness is provided in a separate and additional mark or marking stamped on the same article of gold?

2.For the answer to the first question is it significant that, as in the instance under consideration, the additional marking concerning the standard of fineness of articles of gold that is provided on the articles and is intelligible to consumers of the Member State of import (for example, marking with the three Arabic numerals ‘585’) has not been effected by an independent assay office authorised by a Member State of the European Union, but the information provided in the marking corresponds in meaning to the information specified in the mark, stamped on the same article, of the independent assay office authorised by the Member State of export (for example, the State of export’s marking with the Arabic numeral ‘3’ specifically denotes, under the legal measures of that State, a standard of fineness of 585)?