- 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-443/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza (Italy) lodged on 13 November 2009 — C.C.I.A.A di Cosenza v Grillo Star srl Fallimento
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009CN0443
62009CN0443
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
27.2.2010
Official Journal of the European Union
C 51/18
(Case C-443/09)
2010/C 51/28
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Camera di commercio, industria, artigianato e agricoltura (CCIAA) di Cosenza
Defendant: Grillo Star srl Fallimento
Questions referred
1.Are the criteria for determining the annual duty referred to in Article 18[1](b) of Italian Law No 580 of 29 December 1993, as provided for in Article 18(3), (4), (5) and (6) thereof, inconsistent with Council Directive 2008/7/EC (1) of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, in so far as the duty cannot be covered by the exceptions provided for in Article 6[1](e) of that directive?
2.In particular:
—Does the annual duty, which is to be determined by reference to ‘the budgetary resources needed in order for the chambers of commerce system to be able to carry out the services which it is under a duty to provide throughout the national territory’, constitute a duty paid by way of fees or dues?
—Does the provision for a ‘balancing fund’, which is intended to harmonise throughout the national territory the performance of all the ‘administrative functions’ entrusted by law to the chambers of commerce, preclude the possibility that the annual duty is a duty paid by way of fees or dues?
—Is the power conferred on the individual chambers of commerce to increase the amount of the annual duty by up to 20 % for the purposes of cofinancing initiatives aimed at increasing production and improving the economic conditions of the territorial unit under their responsibility consistent with that annual duty being a duty paid by way of fees or dues?
—Does the fact that no methods have been specified for determining the total budgetary requirements for the maintaining and the updating by the chambers of commerce of registrations and notes in the register of companies mean that the annual duty cannot be a duty paid by way of fees or dues?
—Is the fact that the annual duty is determined on a flat-rate basis, with no provision for checking at ‘regular intervals’ that it appropriately reflects the average cost of the service, consistent with the annual duty being a duty paid by way of fees or dues?
(1) OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11.