- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-19/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 11 January 2019 — État belge v Pantochim SA, in liquidation
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0019
62019CN0019
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
18.3.2019
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 103/15
(Case C-19/19)
(2019/C 103/14)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant on a point of law: État belge
Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Pantochim SA, in liquidation
Questions referred
—Must the provision according to which the claim in respect of which a request for recovery has been made ‘shall be treated as a claim of the Member State in which the requested authority is situated’, as provided for in [the second paragraph of] Article 6 of Council Directive 2008/55/EC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, (1) which replaces Article 6(2) of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, (2) be understood as meaning that the claim of the requesting State is to be treated as being a claim of the requested State, with the result that the claim of the requesting State acquires the status of a claim of the requested State?
—Must the term ‘privilege’ referred to in Article 10 of Council Directive 2008/55/EC of 26 May 2008, and, before codification, in Article 10 of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976, be understood as the preferential right attached to the claim which confers on it a right of priority over other claims in the event of concurrence, or as any mechanism which results, in the event of concurrence, in the preferential payment of the claim?
—Must the option available to the tax authority to carry out, under the conditions laid down by Article 334 of the Programme-Law of 27 November 2004, a set-off in the event of concurrence be regarded as a privilege within the meaning of Article 10 of the abovementioned directives?
Language of the case: French.
(1) OJ 2008 L 150, p. 28.
(2) OJ 1976 L 73, p. 18. Directive 2008/55/EC indicates (footnote 3) that the original title of Directive 76/308/EEC was amended by Directive 79/1071/EEC (OJ L 331, p. 10), Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) and Directive 2001/44/EC (OJ 2001 L 175, p. 17).