CELEX: 62020CN0327
Language: en
Date: 2020-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-327/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu (Poland) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Skarb Państwa — Starosta Nyski v New Media Development & Hotel Services Sp. z o.o.

25.1.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 28/10
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu (Poland) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Skarb Państwa — Starosta Nyski v New Media Development & Hotel Services Sp. z o.o.
      (Case C-327/20)
      (2021/C 28/14)
      Language of the case: Polish
      
         Referring court
      
      Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Skarb Państwa — Starosta Nyski
      
         Defendant: New Media Development & Hotel Services Sp. z o.o.
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Must the provisions of Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of 16 February 2011 (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29, as amended) on combating late payment in commercial transactions (recast) (1) be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of Article 2 and Article 4(1) of the Ustawa z dnia 8 marca 2013 r. o przeciwdziałaniu nadmiernym opóźnieniom w transakcjach handlowych (Law of 8 March 2013 on counteracting excessive delays in commercial transactions) which does not include immovable property in the concept of goods and does not include the leasing of immovable property in perpetual usufruct within the meaning of Article 232 et seq. of the Kodeks Cywilny (Polish Civil Code) in the concept of delivery of goods, or must they be interpreted as meaning that such action cannot be regarded as the provision of services?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative,
                  must the provisions of Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (recast) be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of Article 71 et seq. of the Ustawa z dnia 21 sierpnia 1997 r. o gospodarce nieruchomościami (Law of 21 August 1997 on the management of immovable property) and Article 238 of the Civil Code according to which the collection of annual fees for perpetual usufruct by the Skarb Państwa (State Treasury, Poland) from entities which engage in economic activity but were not the original entities for the benefit of which the State Treasury established the right of perpetual usufruct, but rather acquired that right from other perpetual usufructuaries, does not fall within the scope of the concept of a commercial transaction and of a public authority within the meaning of Article 2(1) and (2) of the abovementioned directive and of Article 2 and Article 4(1) of the Law of 8 March 2013 on counteracting excessive delays in commercial transactions, or must they be interpreted as meaning that that activity does not fall within the scope of the provisions of that directive and of that law?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative,
                  must the provisions of Article 12(4) of Directive 2011/7/EU of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (recast) and of Article 6(3)(b) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of Article 15 of the Law of 8 March 2013 on counteracting excessive delays in commercial transactions and Article 12 of the Ustawa z dnia 12 czerwca 2003 r. o terminie zapłaty w transakcjach handlowych (Law of 12 June 2003 on payment terms in commercial transactions) whereby they exclude the possibility of applying the provisions of the abovementioned directive and of the law implementing it to contracts for the sale of the right of perpetual usufruct to the current perpetual usufructuary, who is required to pay an annual fee, which were concluded after 28 April 2013 and 1 January 2004, if the original leasing of the land in perpetual usufruct by the State Treasury to another entity took place before 28 April 2013 and 1 January 2004?
               
            
         (1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.