Case C-265/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social 2 de Terrassa (Barcelona) lodged on 15 May 2013 — Emiliano Torralbo Marcos v Korota S.A. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial
Date: 2013-05-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, access to the courts, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, legal system, tax








C_2013207EN.01002901.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/29





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social 2 de Terrassa (Barcelona) lodged on 15 May 2013 — Emiliano Torralbo Marcos v Korota S.A. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial
(Case C-265/13)
2013/C 207/47
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Emiliano Torralbo Marcos

Defendants: Korota S.A. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 1, 2(f), 3(1), 4(2)(a), 4(3), 5(3), 6, 7 and 8(1) and 8(2) of Law No 10/2012 of 20 November 2012 regulating certain fees relating to the administration of justice and to the National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Science (Ley 10/201, de 20 de noviembre 2012, por la que se regulan determinadas tasas en el ámbito de la Administración de Justicia y del Instituto Nacional de Toxicología y Ciencias Forenses) contrary to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) in that they do not permit a national court to: (a) adjust judicial fees or to assess reasons of proportionality (relating to the basis for charging the fees on the part of the State or to their amount as constituting an obstacle to obtaining an effective remedy) for the purposes of exemption; (b) have regard to the principle of effectiveness in the application of provisions of Union law; or (c) assess the importance of the proceedings to the parties in the light of the circumstances, when payment of judicial fees is a prerequisite to obtaining leave to proceed with the appeal lodged?










2.


Are Articles 1, 2(f), 3(1), 4(2)(a), 4(3), 5(3), 6, 7 and 8(1) and 8(2) of Law No 10/2012 of 20 November 2012 regulating certain fees relating to the administration of justice and to the National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Science (Ley 10/2012, de 20 de noviembre, por la que se regulan determinadas tasas en el ámbito de la Administración de justicia y del Instituto Nacional de Toxicología y Ciencias Forenses) contrary to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that the latter applies to special procedures, as in the case of an employment court or tribunal, in which Union law is commonly applied as a fundamental aspect of balanced economic and social development in the Community?










3.


In connection with the foregoing questions, is it open to a court such as the referring court to refrain from applying legislation such as the legislation at issue which does not permit a national court to: (a) adjust judicial fees or to assess reasons of proportionality (relating to the basis for charging the fees on the part of the State or to their amount as constituting an obstacle to obtaining an effective remedy) for the purposes of exemption; (b) have regard to the principle of effectiveness in the application of provisions of Union law; or (c) assess the importance of the proceedings to the parties in the light of the circumstances, when payment of judicial fees is a prerequisite to obtaining leave to proceed with the appeal lodged?






(1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.