do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-386/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Siegfried János Schneider
Date: 2012-08-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, legal capacity, real property








C_2012311EN.01000702.xml










13.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Siegfried János Schneider
(Case C-386/12)
2012/C 311/09
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Party to the main proceedings


Applicant: Siegfried János Schneider

Question referred

Is Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 applicable only to contentious proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property, or does the provision also apply to non-contentious proceedings in which nationals of a Member State who have been declared by a court of that State, in accordance with its national law, to be lacking full legal capacity and for whom a guardian has been appointed (who is also a national of that Member State), and who seek to dispose of immovable property belonging to them which is situated in another Member State?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Case C-384/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Rostock (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Per Harald Lökkevik
Date: 2012-08-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competence, European Commission, financial policy, interpretation of the law, investment aid, regional aid








C_2012343EN.01000601.xml










10.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Rostock (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Per Harald Lökkevik
(Case C-384/12)
2012/C 343/05
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Rostock

Parties to the main proceedings

Per Harald Lökkevik

Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Rostock

Question referred

Should the concept of an advantage within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it includes a situation in which it appears that simply a lack of competence of the European Commission has been brought about by statements made in a subsidy procedure for the purposes of avoiding the prescribed notification of regional investment aid projects with total project costs of at least EUR 50 million laid down in Section 2(1)(i) of the Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects of 7 April 1998 (OJ 1998 C 107, p. 7)?


(1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.
Case C-385/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
Date: 2012-08-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: corporation tax, freedom to provide services, retail trade, right of establishment








C_2012366EN.01002401.xml










24.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/24





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
(Case C-385/12)
2012/C 366/41
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Székesfehérvári Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Question referred

Is the fact that taxpayers engaged in store retail trade have to pay a special tax if their net annual turnover is higher than HUF 500 million compatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty governing the principle of the general prohibition of discrimination (Articles 18 TFEU and 26 TFEU), the principle of freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU), the principle of equal treatment (Article 54 TFEU), the principle of equal treatment as regards participation in the capital of companies or firms within the meaning of Article 54 (Article 55 TFEU), the principle of freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU), the principle of the free movement of capital (Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU) and the principle of equality of taxation of companies (Article 110 TFEU)?