28.11.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 451/11
2.
In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, then, for the purposes of interpreting the phrase ‘the place where those events actually take place’, appearing in Article 53 of the VAT Directive, is the place where the performers appear in front of the webcam relevant, or the place where the organiser of the sessions is established, or the place where customers see the images, or should some other place be taken into account?
(1)
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 22 August 2022 — SN and LN, represented by SN (Case C-563/22) (2022/C 451/14) Language of the case: Bulgarian Referring court Administrativen sad Sofia-grad
Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: SN and LN, represented by SN Defendant: Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavnata agentsia za bezhantsite
Questions referred 1.
Does it follow from Article 40(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) that, where a subsequent application for international protection lodged by a stateless applicant of Palestinian origin on the basis of his or her registration with UNRWA is admissible, the obligation on the competent authorities laid down in that provision to take into account and consider all the elements underlying the further representations in the subsequent application also includes, in the circumstances of the case, the obligation to consider the reasons for which the person left UNRWA’s area of operations, in addition to the new elements or circumstances which are the subject of the subsequent application, when that obligation is interpreted in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU?
(2) Does fulfilment of that obligation depend on the fact that the reasons for which the person left UNRWA’s area of operations had already been examined in the proceedings relating to the first application for [international] protection, which resulted in a final decision refusing such protection but in which the applicant neither invoked nor proved his or her registration with UNRWA? 2.
Does it follow from the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 that the phrase ‘When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason’ in that provision applies to a stateless person of Palestinian origin who was registered with UNRWA and was receiving assistance in Gaza City from UNRWA in the form of food, health services and educational services, without there being any evidence of a personal threat to that person, who left Gaza City voluntarily and lawfully, having regard to the information available in the case: — assessment of the general situation at the time of departure as constituting an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, associated with shortages of food, drinking water, health services and medicines, as well as water and electricity supply issues, the destruction of buildings and infrastructure, and unemployment; — UNRWA’s difficulties in sustaining the provision of aid and services in Gaza, including in the form of food and health services, due to a significant deficit in UNRWA’s budget and a steady increase in the number of persons in need of the agency’s assistance, [and the circumstance that] the general situation in Gaza is undermining UNRWA’s activities?
Must that question be answered differently for the sole reason that the applicant is a vulnerable person within the meaning of Article 20(3) of that directive, namely a minor child?