do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-556/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2016 — Lutz GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover
Date: 2016-11-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, clothing, common customs tariff, specification of tariff heading








C_2017038EN.01000801.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2016 — Lutz GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover
(Case C-556/16)
(2017/C 038/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lutz GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Questions referred







1.








(a)


Are the European Commission Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (1) on subheading 6212 2000 (OJ 2015 C 76, p. 1, at p. 255) to be interpreted as meaning that a panty girdle has ‘restricted horizontal’ elasticity where the horizontal elasticity is less than the vertical elasticity?










(b)


If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the affirmative:
On the basis of which objective criteria is this comparison between vertical and horizontal elasticity to be made?














2.


If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the negative:






(a)


Are the European Commission Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union on subheading 6212 2000 (OJ 2015 C 76, p. 1, at p. 255) to be interpreted as meaning that a panty girdle has ‘restricted horizontal’ elasticity only where the horizontal elasticity is clearly less than the vertical elasticity?










(b)


If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative:
On the basis of which objective criteria is this comparison between vertical and horizontal elasticity to be made and which assessment criterion should be applied in that respect?














3.


If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative:






(a)


Are the European Commission Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union on subheading 6212 2000 (OJ 2015 C 76, p. 1, at p. 255) to be interpreted as meaning that the restriction of horizontal elasticity in panty girdles is not defined by a comparison between vertical and horizontal elasticity but refers rather to an absolute restriction of horizontal elasticity?










(b)


If the answer to Question 3(a) is in the affirmative:




On the basis of which objective criteria is it necessary to examine whether the elasticity of a panty girdle is restricted horizontally within the meaning referred to under 3(a)?






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).
Case C-558/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2016 — Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf
Date: 2016-11-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: inheritance, law of succession, marriage








C_2017030EN.01002002.xml










30.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2016 — Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf
(Case C-558/16)
(2017/C 030/25)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf

Defendant: Sven Mahnkopf

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 1(1) of the EU Succession Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the scope of the regulation (‘succession’) also covers provisions of national law which, like Paragraph 1371(1) of the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB, Civil Code), govern questions relating to matrimonial property regimes after the death of one spouse by increasing the share of the estate on intestacy of the other spouse?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative, are Articles 68(l) and 67(1) of the EU Succession Regulation in any case to be interpreted as meaning that the share of the surviving spouse may be recorded in full in the European Certificate of Succession, even if a portion of it stems from an increase pursuant to a rule governing matrimonial property regimes like Paragraph 1371(1) of the Civil Code?
If this question is to be answered in the negative in principle, can it nevertheless be answered in the affirmative exceptionally for situations where






(a)


the purpose of the Certificate of Succession is limited to asserting rights of the heirs in a certain other Member States to property of the deceased located there, and










(b)


the ruling on succession (Articles 4 and 21 of the EU Succession Regulation) and — irrespective of which conflict-of-law rules are applied — the questions relating to matrimonial property regimes are to be assessed on the basis of the same national legal system.














3.


If the first and second questions are answered in the negative in their entirety, is Article 68(l) of the EU Succession Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the share of the surviving spouse increased pursuant to a rule governing matrimonial property regimes may be recorded in full in the European Certificate of Succession, but for information purposes only on account of the increase?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession; OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.