CELEX: 62017CN0695
Language: en
Date: 2017-12-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-695/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin käräjäoikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 December 2017 — Metirato Oy, in liquidation v Finnish State / Tax Authority, Estonian State / Maksu- ja Tolliamet

5.3.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 83/11
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin käräjäoikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 December 2017 — Metirato Oy, in liquidation v Finnish State / Tax Authority, Estonian State / Maksu- ja Tolliamet
   (Case C-695/17)
   (2018/C 083/17)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   
      Referring court
   
   Helsingin käräjäoikeus
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Metirato Oy, in liquidation
   
      Defendants: Finnish State / Tax Authority, Estonian State / Maksu- ja Tolliamet
   
      Questions referred
   
   
            
               1.
            
            
               Must the provisions of Article 13(1) of [Directive 2010/24] (1), according to which debts to be recovered pursuant to a request for recovery are to be treated by the requested State as being the debts of that State, be interpreted as meaning that
               
                           (a)
                        
                        
                           the requested Member State is also a party to the legal proceedings concerning the restitution to the insolvency estate of sums paid following a recovery, or
                        
                     
                           (b)
                        
                        
                           that the involvement of the requested State is limited to the recovery of the debt by enforcement and the lodgement of the claim in the insolvency proceedings, and that it is the applicant State which is the defendant in a request for recovery concerning the extent of the assets covered by the liquidation?
                        
                     
         
            
               2.
            
            
               Must the directive be interpreted as meaning that the debts of another Member State are to be recovered using the same means, while remaining separate and distinct from the assets of the requested State, or must the directive be interpreted as meaning that those debts are to be recovered together with the debts of the requested State, in which case they are merged with the debts of the requested State. In other words: does the directive aim exclusively to prohibit the discrimination of debts of another Member State?
            
         
            
               3.
            
            
               Is it possible for a dispute concerning restitution of assets to the insolvency estate to be treated as a dispute concerning the enforcement measures within the meaning of Article 14(2), and can it be inferred that, according to the directive, the requested State is also a defendant in such a dispute?
            
         
      (1)  Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures (OJ 2010 L 84, p. 1).