- 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-505/13: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria)) — Levent Redzheb Yumer v Direktor na Teritoriyalna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna (Income tax — Article 2 TEU — Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of legal certainty, effectiveness and proportionality — Farmers’ right to a reduction of income tax — Exclusion of natural persons carrying out agricultural activity — Implementation of EU law — No implementation — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CB0505
62013CB0505
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 409/24
(Case C-505/13) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Income tax - Article 2 TEU - Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principles of legal certainty, effectiveness and proportionality - Farmers’ right to a reduction of income tax - Exclusion of natural persons carrying out agricultural activity - Implementation of EU law - No implementation - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
2014/C 409/35
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Levent Redzheb Yumer
Defendant: Direktor na Teritoriyalna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna
Operative part of the order
1.The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria), by decision of 5 September 2013.
2.The first and second questions referred are manifestly inadmissible in so far as they relate to the interpretation of Article 2 TEU.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.