- 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-321/24, Attal et Associés: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris (France) lodged on 30 April 2024 – BC v S. C. P. Attal et Associés
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0321
62024CN0321
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
EN
C series
—
C/2024/4953
19.8.2024
(Case C-321/24, Attal et Associés)
(C/2024/4953)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: BC
Defendant: S. C. P. Attal et Associés
Questions referred
1.Is Article 63(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding the dual remuneration of the notaries of two Member States of the European Union involved in the same succession, which includes assets in the two Member States, the calculation of which is also based on the total gross assets of the estate, without taking into account the remuneration paid to the other notary, whereas the involvement of the notary is a legal requirement?
2.Is Article 63(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding the remuneration of a notary, whose involvement in a succession including assets in two Member States of the European Union is a legal requirement, from being calculated based on the total gross assets of the estate and not just on the gross assets located in his or her Member State?
3.Are Articles 63(1) and 65(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that the dual remuneration of two notaries, involved in the same succession, which is again calculated based on the total gross assets of the estate located in two Member States, can constitute a ‘relevant provision of their tax law’ derogating from the prohibition on restricting movements of capital laid down in the first of those articles, whereas the involvement of the notary is a legal requirement?
4.Are Articles 63(1) and 65(1)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that the dual remuneration of two notaries, involved in the same succession, which is again calculated based on the total gross assets of the estate located in the two Member States, can constitute an essential measure to thwart tax infringements or a procedure for the declaration of capital movements for administrative or statistical information purposes derogating from the prohibition on restricting capital movements laid down in the first of those articles, whereas the involvement of the notary is a legal requirement?
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4953/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—