# C_2015302EN.01001401.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Drago Nemec v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-256/15)

(2015/C 302/18)

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Drago Nemec

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/35 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in a system in which, for the purposes of engaging in an economic activity, a natural person is granted authorisation stating the activity for which authorisation is granted, there is no undertaking, nor, therefore, any commercial transaction within the meaning of the above-mentioned provision of the Directive, when the legal transaction giving rise to late payment relates to an activity not covered by the authorisation?
  If the reply to the above question is in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/35 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in a system in which, for the purposes of engaging in an economic activity, a natural person is granted authorisation stating the activity for which authorisation is granted, there is no undertaking, nor, therefore, any commercial transaction within the meaning of the above-mentioned provision of the Directive, when the legal transaction giving rise to late payment relates to an activity not covered by the authorisation?

1

If the reply to the above question is in the negative:

| 2. | Is the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/35 to be interpreted as meaning that a natural person is deemed to be an undertaking and the legal transaction giving rise to late payment constitutes a commercial transaction within the meaning of that provision, when the legal transaction does not fall within the activity registered by the said natural person but stems from an activity which, by its nature, may be an economic activity, and an invoice has been issued for that transaction? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/35 to be interpreted as meaning that a natural person is deemed to be an undertaking and the legal transaction giving rise to late payment constitutes a commercial transaction within the meaning of that provision, when the legal transaction does not fall within the activity registered by the said natural person but stems from an activity which, by its nature, may be an economic activity, and an invoice has been issued for that transaction?

| 3. | Does the rule that interest on late payment ceases to run when the amount of accrued and unpaid interest equals the principal amount owed (the rule ne ultra alterum tantum) run counter to the provisions of Directive 2000/35? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the rule that interest on late payment ceases to run when the amount of accrued and unpaid interest equals the principal amount owed (the rule ne ultra alterum tantum) run counter to the provisions of Directive 2000/35?

ne ultra alterum tantum

---

(1)  Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35).

1

---