- 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-589/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 10 October 2017 — Prenatal S.A. v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CN0589
62017CN0589
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
22.1.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 22/19
(Case C-589/17)
(2018/C 022/28)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Prenatal S.A.
Defendant: Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC)
Questions referred
1)Where an application for remission has been made and the Commission notifies its decision that the case has elements of fact and law similar to a previous case already resolved by the Commission or its decision that there is a comparable case pending resolution, is either of those decisions to be regarded as an act with legal content which is binding on the authorities of the Member State in which application for remission is made and is therefore open to appeal by the person seeking remission [Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1)] or requesting that there be no entry in the accounts (Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code)?
2)If it is not to be regarded as a Commission decision with binding legal content, is it then for the national authorities to evaluate whether there are comparable elements of fact or law in the case?
3)In the event of an affirmative reply, if that analysis has been made and led to the conclusion that such elements are not present, is it necessary to apply Article 905(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code and, therefore, must the Commission issue a decision with legal content binding on those national authorities?
4)In the event of an affirmative reply, does the use of the term ‘the Member State’ in Article 905(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (2) mean that every authority, including the judicial authority, is under an obligation to request the Commission to take a decision?
(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.