mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: German

Da nach Ansicht des Bundesfinanzhofs die Entscheidung des bei ihm anhängigen Rechtsstreits die Auslegung von Bestimmungen der Mehrwertsteuerrichtlinie erfordert, hat er beschlossen, das Verfahren auszusetzen und dem Gerichtshof folgende Frage zur Vorabentscheidung vorzulegen:
Ist in Fällen der Differenzbesteuerung nach den Art. 311 ff. der Mehrwertsteuerrichtlinie die Bestimmung des Art. 288 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 dieser Richtlinie dahin gehend auszulegen, dass für die Bemessung des danach maßgeblichen Umsatzes bei der Lieferung von Gegenständen nach Art. 314 der Mehrwertsteuerrichtlinie gemäß Art. 315 der Richtlinie auf die Differenz zwischen dem geforderten Verkaufspreis und dem Einkaufspreis (Handelsspanne) abzustellen ist?

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "der Gerichtshof"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"->"das Verfahren auszusetzen"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"->"folgende Frage zur Vorabentscheidung vorzulegen";
  "folgende Frage zur Vorabentscheidung vorzulegen"->"der Gerichtshof";
  "folgende Frage zur Vorabentscheidung vorzulegen"->"die Auslegung von Bestimmungen der Mehrwertsteuerrichtlinie."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Estonian

Kuna Bundesfinanzhof (Saksamaa Liitvabariigi kõrgeim maksukohus) leidis, et kohtuvaidluse lahendamiseks on vaja tõlgendada käibemaksudirektiivi sätteid, otsustas ta menetluse peatada ja esitada Euroopa Kohtule järgmise eelotsuse küsimuse:
„Kas kasuminormi maksustamise juhtudel vastavalt [käibemaksu] direktiivi artiklile 311 ja järgnevatele artiklitele tuleb selle direktiivi artikli 288 esimese lõigu punkti 1 tõlgendada nii, et vastavalt sellele tuleb [käibemaksu] direktiivi artikli 314 kohaste kaubatarnete korral asjaomase käibe arvutamiseks tugineda vastavalt selle direktiivi artiklile 315 nõutud müügihinna ja ostuhinna vahele (kasuminormile)?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Euroopa Kohut"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Saksamaa Liitvabariigi kõrgeim maksukohus))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Saksamaa Liitvabariigi kõrgeim maksukohus))"->"menetluse peatada"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Saksamaa Liitvabariigi kõrgeim maksukohus))"->"„Kas kasuminormi maksustamise juhtudel vastavalt [käibemaksu] direktiivi artiklile 311 ja järgnevatele artiklitele tuleb selle direktiivi artikli 288 esimese lõigu punkti 1 tõlgendada nii, et vastavalt sellele tuleb [käibemaksu] direktiivi artikli 314 kohaste kaubatarnete korral asjaomase käibe arvutamiseks tugineda vastavalt selle direktiivi artiklile 315 nõutud müügihinna ja ostuhinna vahele (kasuminormile)?“";
  "„Kas kasuminormi maksustamise juhtudel vastavalt [käibemaksu] direktiivi artiklile 311 ja järgnevatele artiklitele tuleb selle direktiivi artikli 288 esimese lõigu punkti 1 tõlgendada nii, et vastavalt sellele tuleb [käibemaksu] direktiivi artikli 314 kohaste kaubatarnete korral asjaomase käibe arvutamiseks tugineda vastavalt selle direktiivi artiklile 315 nõutud müügihinna ja ostuhinna vahele (kasuminormile)?“"->"Euroopa Kohut";
  "„Kas kasuminormi maksustamise juhtudel vastavalt [käibemaksu] direktiivi artiklile 311 ja järgnevatele artiklitele tuleb selle direktiivi artikli 288 esimese lõigu punkti 1 tõlgendada nii, et vastavalt sellele tuleb [käibemaksu] direktiivi artikli 314 kohaste kaubatarnete korral asjaomase käibe arvutamiseks tugineda vastavalt selle direktiivi artiklile 315 nõutud müügihinna ja ostuhinna vahele (kasuminormile)?“"->"tõlgendada käibemaksudirektiivi sätteid."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Greek

Εκτιμώντας ότι η επίλυση της διαφοράς της οποίας επελήφθη απαιτεί την ερμηνεία των διατάξεων της οδηγίας ΦΠΑ, το Bundesfinanzhof (ομοσπονδιακό φορολογικό δικαστήριο) αποφάσισε να αναστείλει την ενώπιόν του διαδικασία και να υποβάλει στο Δικαστήριο το ακόλουθο προδικαστικό ερώτημα:
«Έχει το άρθρο 288, πρώτο εδάφιο, σημείο 1, της οδηγίας [ΦΠΑ], την έννοια ότι, στις περιπτώσεις εφαρμογής του καθεστώτος του περιθωρίου κέρδους σύμφωνα με τις διατάξεις των άρθρων 311 επ. της εν λόγω οδηγίας, ο κύκλος εργασιών που λαμβάνεται υπόψη για παραδόσεις αγαθών εμπίπτουσες στο άρθρο 314 της οδηγίας [ΦΠΑ] υπολογίζεται κατά το άρθρο 315 της εν λόγω οδηγίας με βάση τη διαφορά μεταξύ της τιμής πώλησης του αντικειμένου από τον υποκείμενο στον φόρο μεταπωλητή και της τιμής αγοράς (περιθώριο κέρδους);»

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Δικαστήριο"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (ομοσπονδιακό φορολογικό δικαστήριο))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (ομοσπονδιακό φορολογικό δικαστήριο))"->"αναστείλει την ενώπιόν του διαδικασία"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (ομοσπονδιακό φορολογικό δικαστήριο))"->"προδικαστικό ερώτημα";
  "προδικαστικό ερώτημα"->"Δικαστήριο";
  "προδικαστικό ερώτημα"->"Εκτιμώντας ότι η επίλυση της διαφοράς της οποίας επελήφθη απαιτεί την ερμηνεία των διατάξεων της οδηγίας ΦΠΑ."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: French

Estimant que la solution du litige dont il est saisi nécessite l’interprétation de dispositions de la directive TVA, le Bundesfinanzhof (Cour fédérale des finances) a décidé de surseoir à statuer et de poser à la Cour la question préjudicielle suivante :
« Convient-il, dans les cas d’application du régime de la marge bénéficiaire au titre des articles 311 et suivants de la directive [TVA], d’interpréter les dispositions de l’article 288, premier alinéa, point 1, de cette directive en ce sens que, pour le calcul du chiffre d’affaires pertinent lors de la livraison de biens au titre de l’article 314 de la directive [TVA], il y a lieu de se fonder, conformément à l’article 315 de ladite directive, sur la différence entre le prix de vente demandé et le prix d’achat (marge commerciale) ? »

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "la Cour"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Cour fédérale des finances))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Cour fédérale des finances))"->"surseoir à statuer"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Cour fédérale des finances))"->"la question préjudicielle suivante";
  "la question préjudicielle suivante"->"la Cour";
  "la question préjudicielle suivante"->"d’interpréter les dispositions de la directive TVA."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Croatian

Smatrajući da je za rješenje spora koji se pred njim vodi potrebno tumačenje odredaba Direktive o PDV‑u, Bundesfinanzhof (Savezni financijski sud) odlučio je prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu sljedeće prethodno pitanje:
„Treba li, u slučaju primjene maržnog sustava u skladu s člancima 311. i sljedećima Direktive [o PDV‑u], odredbe članka 288. prvog stavka točke 1. te direktive tumačiti na način da se izračun relevantnog prometa prilikom isporuke robe u skladu s člankom 314. Direktive [o PDV‑u] treba temeljiti u skladu s člankom 315. te direktive na razlici između zaračunane prodajne cijene i nabavne cijene (trgovačka marža)?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Sud"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Savezni financijski sud)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Savezni financijski sud)"->"prekinuti postupak"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Savezni financijski sud)"->"„Treba li, u slučaju primjene maržnog sustava u skladu s člancima 311. i sljedećima Direktive [o PDV‑u], odredbe članka 288. prvog stavka točke 1. te direktive tumačiti na način da se izračun relevantnog prometa prilikom isporuke robe u skladu s člankom 314. Direktive [o PDV‑u] treba temeljiti u skladu s člankom 315. te direktive na razlici između zaračunane prodajne cijene i nabavne cijene (trgovačka marža)?”";
  "„Treba li, u slučaju primjene maržnog sustava u skladu s člancima 311. i sljedećima Direktive [o PDV‑u], odredbe članka 288. prvog stavka točke 1. te direktive tumačiti na način da se izračun relevantnog prometa prilikom isporuke robe u skladu s člankom 314. Direktive [o PDV‑u] treba temeljiti u skladu s člankom 315. te direktive na razlici između zaračunane prodajne cijene i nabavne cijene (trgovačka marža)?”"->"Sud";
  "„Treba li, u slučaju primjene maržnog sustava u skladu s člancima 311. i sljedećima Direktive [o PDV‑u], odredbe članka 288. prvog stavka točke 1. te direktive tumačiti na način da se izračun relevantnog prometa prilikom isporuke robe u skladu s člankom 314. Direktive [o PDV‑u] treba temeljiti u skladu s člankom 315. te direktive na razlici između zaračunane prodajne cijene i nabavne cijene (trgovačka marža)?”"->"tumačenje odredaba Direktive o PDV‑u."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Italian

Ritenendo che la soluzione della controversia di cui è investito necessiti l’interpretazione di disposizioni della direttiva IVA, il Bundesfinanzhof (Corte tributaria federale) ha deciso di sospendere il procedimento e di sottoporre alla Corte la seguente questione pregiudiziale:
«Se, nei casi di applicabilità del regime del margine ai sensi degli articoli 311 e seguenti della direttiva [IVA], le disposizioni dell’articolo 288, primo comma, punto 1, della direttiva medesima debbano essere interpretate nel senso che, in caso di cessione di beni a norma dell’articolo 314 della direttiva [IVA], ai fini della quantificazione del volume d’affari rilevante per la tassazione occorra fare riferimento, conformemente al successivo articolo 315, alla differenza tra il prezzo di vendita chiesto e il prezzo di acquisto (margine)».

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Corte tributaria federale"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Corte tributaria federale)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Corte tributaria federale)"->"sospendere il procedimento"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Corte tributaria federale)"->"la seguente questione pregiudiziale";
  "la seguente questione pregiudiziale"->"Corte tributaria federale";
  "la seguente questione pregiudiziale"->"l’interpretazione di disposizioni della direttiva IVA."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Latvian

Uzskatot, ka izskatāmās lietas iznākums ir atkarīgs no PVN direktīvas noteikumu interpretācijas, Bundesfinanzhof (Federālā finanšu tiesa) nolēma apturēt tiesvedību un uzdot Tiesai šādu prejudiciālu jautājumu:
“Vai peļņas daļas režīma piemērošanas gadījumos saskaņā ar [PVN] direktīvas 311. un nākamajiem pantiem šīs direktīvas 288. panta pirmās daļas 1. punkta noteikums ir jāinterpretē tādējādi, ka, nosakot saskaņā ar to vērā ņemamo apgrozījumu, ko veido [PVN] direktīvas 314. pantā minētās preču piegādes, saskaņā ar šīs direktīvas 315. pantu ir jāņem vērā starpība starp prasīto pārdošanas cenu un pirkuma cenu (peļņas daļa)?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Tiesai"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Federālā finanšu tiesa)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Federālā finanšu tiesa)"->"apturēt tiesvedību"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Federālā finanšu tiesa)"->"“Vai peļņas daļas režīma piemērošanas gadījumos saskaņā ar [PVN] direktīvas 311. un nākamajiem pantiem šīs direktīvas 288. panta pirmās daļas 1. punkta noteikums ir jāinterpretē tādējādi, ka, nosakot saskaņā ar to vērā ņemamo apgrozījumu, ko veido [PVN] direktīvas 314. pantā minētās preču piegādes, saskaņā ar šīs direktīvas 315. pantu ir jāņem vērā starpība starp prasīto pārdošanas cenu un pirkuma cenu (peļņas daļa)?”";
  "“Vai peļņas daļas režīma piemērošanas gadījumos saskaņā ar [PVN] direktīvas 311. un nākamajiem pantiem šīs direktīvas 288. panta pirmās daļas 1. punkta noteikums ir jāinterpretē tādējādi, ka, nosakot saskaņā ar to vērā ņemamo apgrozījumu, ko veido [PVN] direktīvas 314. pantā minētās preču piegādes, saskaņā ar šīs direktīvas 315. pantu ir jāņem vērā starpība starp prasīto pārdošanas cenu un pirkuma cenu (peļņas daļa)?”"->"Tiesai";
  "“Vai peļņas daļas režīma piemērošanas gadījumos saskaņā ar [PVN] direktīvas 311. un nākamajiem pantiem šīs direktīvas 288. panta pirmās daļas 1. punkta noteikums ir jāinterpretē tādējādi, ka, nosakot saskaņā ar to vērā ņemamo apgrozījumu, ko veido [PVN] direktīvas 314. pantā minētās preču piegādes, saskaņā ar šīs direktīvas 315. pantu ir jāņem vērā starpība starp prasīto pārdošanas cenu un pirkuma cenu (peļņas daļa)?”"->"PVN direktīvas noteikumu interpretācijas."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Lithuanian

Manydamas, kad jo nagrinėjamos bylos sprendimas priklauso nuo PVM direktyvos tam tikrų nuostatų išaiškinimo, Bundesfinanzhof (Federalinis finansų teismas) nutarė sustabdyti bylos nagrinėjimą ir pateikti Teisingumo Teismui tokį prejudicinį klausimą:
„Ar tais atvejais, kai taikoma maržos apmokestinimo schema, numatyta pagal [PVM direktyvos] 311 straipsnį ir paskesnius straipsnius, [šios direktyvos] 288 straipsnio pirmos pastraipos 1 punktą reikia aiškinti taip, kad apskaičiuojant atitinkamą apyvartą, susidariusią tiekiant [PVM direktyvos] 314 straipsnyje nurodytas prekes, reikia remtis nustatytos pardavimo kainos ir pirkimo kainos skirtumu (marža), kaip nurodyta [minėtos direktyvos] 315 straipsnyje?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Teisingumo Teismui"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Federalinis finansų teismas)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Federalinis finansų teismas)"->"sustabdyti bylos nagrinėjimą"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Federalinis finansų teismas)"->"Prejudicinį klausimą pateikti Teisingumo Teismui";
  "Prejudicinį klausimą pateikti Teisingumo Teismui"->"Teisingumo Teismui";
  "Prejudicinį klausimą pateikti Teisingumo Teismui"->"išaiškinimo PVM direktyvos tam tikrų nuostatų."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Hungarian

A Bundesfinanzhof (szövetségi pénzügyi bíróság), mivel úgy ítélte meg, hogy az előtte folyamatban lévő jogvita megoldásához a héairányelv rendelkezéseinek az értelmezése szükséges, úgy határozott, hogy az eljárást felfüggeszti, és előzetes döntéshozatal céljából a következő kérdést terjeszti a Bíróság elé:
„Úgy kell‑e értelmezni a [héairányelv] 311. és azt követő cikkei szerinti árrés adóztatása eseteiben [ezen] irányelv 288. cikke első bekezdésének 1. pontját, hogy a [héairányelv] 314. cikkében említett termékértékesítés esetén az eszerint irányadó árbevétel kiszámítása tekintetében az [említett] irányelv 315. cikke szerint a kért eladási ár és a beszerzési ár közötti különbözetet (árrést) kell alapul venni?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Bíróság"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (szövetségi pénzügyi bíróság))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (szövetségi pénzügyi bíróság))"->"az eljárást felfüggeszti"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (szövetségi pénzügyi bíróság))"->"Előzetes döntéshozatal céljából a következő kérdést terjeszti a Bíróság elé";
  "Előzetes döntéshozatal céljából a következő kérdést terjeszti a Bíróság elé"->"Bíróság";
  "Előzetes döntéshozatal céljából a következő kérdést terjeszti a Bíróság elé"->"Úgy kell‑e értelmezni a [héairányelv] 311. és azt követő cikkei szerinti árrés adóztatása eseteiben [ezen] irányelv 288. cikke első bekezdésének 1. pontját, hogy a [héairányelv] 314. cikkében említett termékértékesítés esetén az eszerint irányadó árbevétel kiszámítása tekintetében az [említett] irányelv 315. cikke szerint a kért eladási ár és a beszerzési ár közötti különbözetet (árrést) kell alapul venni?."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Dutch

Aangezien het Bundesfinanzhof van oordeel is dat het voor de beslechting van het aldaar aanhangige geding noodzakelijk is bepalingen van de btw-richtlijn uit te leggen, heeft het de behandeling van de zaak geschorst en het Hof verzocht om een prejudiciële beslissing over de volgende vraag:
„Dient artikel 288, eerste alinea, punt 1, van [de btw-richtlijn] in gevallen waarin de winstmargeregeling van de artikelen 311 en volgende van die richtlijn wordt toegepast, aldus te worden uitgelegd dat voor de vaststelling van de omzet die op grond van die bepaling als maatstaf dient bij de levering van goederen als bedoeld in artikel 314 van [de btw-richtlijn], overeenkomstig artikel 315 van deze richtlijn moet worden uitgegaan van het verschil tussen de gevraagde verkoopprijs en de aankoopprijs (winstmarge)?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"->"heeft het de behandeling van de zaak geschorst"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"->"verzocht om een prejudiciële beslissing";
  "verzocht om een prejudiciële beslissing"->"Bundesfinanzhof";
  "verzocht om een prejudiciële beslissing"->"bepalingen van de btw-richtlijn uit te leggen."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Polish

Uznając, że rozstrzygnięcie zawisłego przed nim sporu wymaga dokonania wykładni przepisów dyrektywy VAT, Bundesfinanzhof (federalny trybunał finansowy) postanowił zawiesić postępowanie i zwrócić się do Trybunału z następującym pytaniem prejudycjalnym:
„Czy w przypadku stosowania procedury marży zgodnie z art. 311 i nast. dyrektywy [VAT] przepis art. 288 zdanie pierwsze pkt 1 tej dyrektywy należy interpretować w ten sposób, że dla określenia kwoty obrotu, o której mowa w tym przepisie, w przypadku dostawy towarów, o których mowa w art. 314 dyrektywy [VAT], zgodnie z art. 315 tej dyrektywy miarodajna jest różnica między określoną ceną sprzedaży towaru a ceną nabycia (marża)?”.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Trybunału"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"->"zawiesić postępowanie"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"->"pytaniem prejudycjalnym";
  "pytaniem prejudycjalnym"->"Trybunału";
  "pytaniem prejudycjalnym"->"dokonania wykładni przepisów dyrektywy VAT."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Portuguese

Considerando que a resolução do litígio submetido à sua apreciação exige a interpretação de disposições da Diretiva IVA, o Bundesfinanzhof (Tribunal Tributário Federal) decidiu suspender a instância e submeter ao Tribunal de Justiça a seguinte questão prejudicial:
«Nas situações em que se aplica o regime da margem de lucro na aceção dos artigos 311.o e seguintes da Diretiva [IVA], deve interpretar‑se a disposição do artigo 288.o, primeiro [parágrafo, ponto 1], desta diretiva no sentido de que, para efeitos do cálculo do volume de negócios relevante nos casos de entregas de bens nos termos do artigo 314.o da Diretiva [IVA], se deve tomar por base, em conformidade com o artigo 315.o da referida diretiva, a diferença entre o preço de venda solicitado e o preço de compra (margem de lucro)?»

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Tribunal de Justiça"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Tribunal Tributário Federal)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Tribunal Tributário Federal)"->"decidiu suspender a instância"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Tribunal Tributário Federal)"->"a seguinte questão prejudicial";
  "a seguinte questão prejudicial"->"Tribunal de Justiça";
  "a seguinte questão prejudicial"->"a interpretação de disposições da Diretiva IVA."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Romanian

Apreciind că soluționarea litigiului cu care este sesizată necesită interpretarea unor dispoziții ale Directivei TVA, Bundesfinanzhof (Curtea Federală Fiscală) a hotărât să suspende judecarea cauzei și să adreseze Curții următoarea întrebare preliminară:
„În cazurile de aplicare a regimului marjei, în sensul articolului 311 și următoarele din Directiva [TVA], dispoziția de la articolul 288 primul paragraf punctul 1 din această directivă trebuie interpretată în sensul că, în cazul unei livrări de bunuri potrivit articolului 314 din Directiva [TVA], pentru stabilirea cifrei de afaceri de referință, în conformitate cu articolul 315 din directiva menționată, se ia în considerare diferența dintre prețul de vânzare solicitat și prețul de cumpărare (marja de profit)?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Curții"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Curtea Federală Fiscală)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Curtea Federală Fiscală)"->"să suspende judecarea cauzei"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Curtea Federală Fiscală)"->"întrebare preliminară";
  "întrebare preliminară"->"Curții";
  "întrebare preliminară"->"interpretarea unor dispoziții ale Directivei TVA."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Slovak

Keďže sa Bundesfinanzhof (Spolkový finančný súd) domnieval, že rozhodnutie sporu vo veci samej závisí od výkladu ustanovení smernice o DPH, rozhodol prerušiť konanie a položiť Súdnemu dvoru túto prejudiciálnu otázku:
„Majú sa v prípade uplatnenia úpravy zdaňovania prirážky podľa článku 311 a nasl. smernice [o DPH] vykladať ustanovenia článku 288 prvého odseku bodu 1 tejto smernice v tom zmysle, že na účely výpočtu relevantného obratu pri dodávke tovaru podľa článku 314 smernice [o DPH] je namieste vychádzať v súlade s článkom 315 uvedenej smernice z rozdielu medzi požadovanou predajnou cenou a kúpnou cenou (obchodná prirážka)?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Súdny dvor"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Spolkový finančný súd))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Spolkový finančný súd))"->"prerušiť konanie"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Spolkový finančný súd))"->"túto prejudiciálnu otázku";
  "túto prejudiciálnu otázku"->"Súdny dvor";
  "túto prejudiciálnu otázku"->"vykladať ustanovenia smernice o DPH."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Slovenian

Ker je Bundesfinanzhof (zvezno finančno sodišče) menilo, da je za rešitev spora, o katerem odloča, potrebna razlaga določb Direktive o DDV, je prekinilo odločanje in Sodišču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vprašanje:
„Ali je treba v primerih uporabe maržne ureditve na podlagi členov 311 in naslednjih Direktive [o DDV] določbe člena 288, prvi odstavek, točka 1, te direktive razlagati tako, da se upoštevni promet pri dobavah blaga iz člena 314 Direktive o DDV v skladu s členom 315 Direktive [o DDV] določa na podlagi razlike med zaračunano prodajno ceno in nabavno ceno?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Sodišču"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"->"prekinilo odločanje"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"->"Ali je treba v primerih uporabe maržne ureditve na podlagi členov 311 in naslednjih Direktive [o DDV] določbe člena 288, prvi odstavek, točka 1, te direktive razlagati tako, da se upoštevni promet pri dobavah blaga iz člena 314 Direktive o DDV v skladu s členom 315 Direktive [o DDV] določa na podlagi razlike med zaračunano prodajno ceno in nabavno ceno?";
  "Ali je treba v primerih uporabe maržne ureditve na podlagi členov 311 in naslednjih Direktive [o DDV] določbe člena 288, prvi odstavek, točka 1, te direktive razlagati tako, da se upoštevni promet pri dobavah blaga iz člena 314 Direktive o DDV v skladu s členom 315 Direktive [o DDV] določa na podlagi razlike med zaračunano prodajno ceno in nabavno ceno?"->"Sodišču";
  "Ali je treba v primerih uporabe maržne ureditve na podlagi členov 311 in naslednjih Direktive [o DDV] določbe člena 288, prvi odstavek, točka 1, te direktive razlagati tako, da se upoštevni promet pri dobavah blaga iz člena 314 Direktive o DDV v skladu s členom 315 Direktive [o DDV] določa na podlagi razlike med zaračunano prodajno ceno in nabavno ceno?"->"Razlagati določbe Direktive o DDV."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Finnish

Koska Bundesfinanzhof katsoi, että sen käsiteltäväksi saatetun asian ratkaiseminen edellyttää arvonlisäverodirektiivin säännösten tulkintaa, se päätti lykätä asian käsittelyä ja esittää unionin tuomioistuimelle seuraavan ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen:
”Onko [arvonlisäverodirektiivin] 311 artiklassa ja sitä seuraavissa artikloissa säädettyä voittomarginaalijärjestelmää koskevissa tapauksissa [arvonlisäverodirektiivin] 288 artiklan ensimmäisen kohdan 1 alakohtaa tulkittava siten, että määritettäessä kyseisen säännöksen mukaisesti merkityksellistä liikevaihtoa [arvonlisäverodirektiivin] 314 artiklassa tarkoitetun tavaroiden luovutuksen yhteydessä perustaksi on mainitun direktiivin 315 artiklan mukaisesti otettava tavaran myyntihinnan ja ostohinnan välinen ero (voittomarginaali)?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"->"lykätä asian käsittelyä"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof)"->"seuraavan ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen";
  "seuraavan ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen"->"Bundesfinanzhof";
  "seuraavan ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen"->"arvonlisäverodirektiivin säännösten tulkintaa."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Finanzamt A v B.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 288 and Article 315 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme — Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small enterprises is applicable — Profit margin or amounts received.
Case C-388/18. (2019)
Language: Swedish

Bundesfinanzhof (Federala skattedomstolen) anser att det är nödvändigt med en tolkning av bestämmelserna i mervärdesskattedirektivet för att kunna avgöra målet. Den har därför beslutat att vilandeförklara målet och att ställa följande tolkningsfråga till EU-domstolen:
”Ska, i fall som omfattas av ordningen för beskattning av vinstmarginal enligt artikel 311 och följande artiklar i [mervärdesskattedirektivet], bestämmelsen i artikel 288 första stycket led 1 i detta direktiv tolkas så, att den relevanta omsättningen vid leveranser av varor enligt artikel 314 i [mervärdesskattedirektivet], ska fastställas som skillnaden mellan det försäljningspris som återförsäljaren tar ut för varorna och inköpspriset (vinstmarginal) i enlighet med artikel 315 i direktivet?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "EU-domstolen"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Federala skattedomstolen))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Federala skattedomstolen))"->"vilandeförklara målet"[dir=none];
  "Bundesfinanzhof (Bundesfinanzhof (Federala skattedomstolen))"->"tolkningsfråga till EU-domstolen";
  "tolkningsfråga till EU-domstolen"->"EU-domstolen";
  "tolkningsfråga till EU-domstolen"->"att tolka bestämmelserna i mervärdesskattedirektivet."[dir=none];

}
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Delfarma Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Protection of health and life of humans — Parallel import of medicinal products — Reference medicinal products and generic medicinal products — Requirement that the imported medicinal product and that which has been granted a marketing authorisation in the Member State of importation are both reference medicinal products or are both generic medicinal products.
Case C-387/18. (2019)
Language: English

Delfarma is a company engaged in the parallel import of medicinal products on the Polish market. Delfarma submitted an application to the President of the Office for the issue of a licence for parallel import from the United Kingdom of the following medicinal product: ‘Sumamed, Azithromycinum, Film-Coated Tablets, 500 mg’ (‘Sumamed’), known in the United Kingdom as ‘Azithromycin 500 mg Film-Coated Tablets’ (‘Azithromycin’). In its application, Delfarma stated that Azithromycin, which is authorised in the United Kingdom, and Sumamed, which is authorised in Poland, were totally identical.
By decision of 13 June 2017, the President of the Office rejected that application on the basis of Article 2(7b) of the Law on medicinal products, after stating that Azithromycin had been authorised in the United Kingdom on the basis of abridged documentation as a product equivalent to a reference medicinal product, whereas Sumamed had been placed on the market in Poland on the basis of full documentation as a reference medicinal product. In the grounds for his decision, the President of the Office observed, inter alia, that the prohibition on quantitative restrictions on imports and measures having equivalent effect deriving from Article 34 TFEU did not preclude the application of prohibitions and restrictions justified on the grounds of the protection of health and life of humans.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Delfarma"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The President of the Office"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Article 2(7b) of the Law on medicinal products"[shape=trapezium];
    
   "Delfarma"->"Application";
   "Application"->"A licence for parallel import from the United Kingdom of medicinal product."[dir=none];
   "Application"->"The President of the Office";
   "The President of the Office"->"Rejected application 13/06/2017";
   "Rejected application 13/06/2017"->"Delfarma";
   "Rejected application 13/06/2017"->"Article 2(7b) of the Law on medicinal products"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Delfarma Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Protection of health and life of humans — Parallel import of medicinal products — Reference medicinal products and generic medicinal products — Requirement that the imported medicinal product and that which has been granted a marketing authorisation in the Member State of importation are both reference medicinal products or are both generic medicinal products.
Case C-387/18. (2019)
Language: Bulgarian

Delfarma е предприятие, осъществяващо дейност по паралелен внос на лекарствени продукти на полския пазар. То е подало до председателя на агенцията заявление за разрешение за паралелен внос от Обединеното кралство на лекарствения продукт „Sumamed, Azithromycinum, филм-таблетки, 500 mg“ (наричан по-нататък „Sumamed“), известен в Обединеното кралство под наименованието „Azithromycin 500 mg Film-Coated Tablets“ (наричан по-нататък „Azithromycin“). В заявлението е посочило, че „Azithromycin“, разрешен в Обединеното кралство, и „Sumamed“, разрешен в Полша, са напълно идентични.
С решение от 13 юни 2017 г. председателят на агенцията отхвърля заявлението на основание член 2, точка 7b от Закона за лекарствените продукти, след като констатира, че „Azithromycin“ е бил разрешен в Обединеното кралство въз основа на съкратена документация като еквивалентен на референтен лекарствен продукт, докато „Sumamed“ е пуснат на пазара в Полша като референтен лекарствен продукт след представяне на пълна документация. В мотивите на решението си председателят на агенцията по-специално отбелязва, че забраната за количествени ограничения върху вноса и мерки с равностоен ефект, произтичаща от член 34 ДФЕС, не е пречка за налагането на забрани или ограничения, оправдани от съображения за закрила на здравето и живота на хората.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Delfarma"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "председателят на агенцията"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "член 2, точка 7b от Закона за лекарствените продукти"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "Delfarma"->"заявление";
  "заявление"->"разрешение за паралелен внос от Обединеното кралство на лекарствения продукт."[dir=none];
  "заявление"->"председателят на агенцията";
  "председателят на агенцията"->"решение от 13 юни 2017 г. председателят на агенцията отхвърля заявлението 13/06/2017";
  "решение от 13 юни 2017 г. председателят на агенцията отхвърля заявлението 13/06/2017"->"Delfarma";
  "решение от 13 юни 2017 г. председателят на агенцията отхвърля заявлението 13/06/2017"->"член 2, точка 7b от Закона за лекарствените продукти"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Delfarma Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Protection of health and life of humans — Parallel import of medicinal products — Reference medicinal products and generic medicinal products — Requirement that the imported medicinal product and that which has been granted a marketing authorisation in the Member State of importation are both reference medicinal products or are both generic medicinal products.
Case C-387/18. (2019)
Language: Spanish

Delfarma es una empresa que ejerce una actividad de importación paralela de medicamentos en el mercado polaco. Esta empresa presentó ante el Presidente de la Oficina una solicitud de autorización de importación paralela, desde el Reino Unido, del medicamento «Sumamed, Azithromycinum, comprimidos recubiertos con película, 500 mg» (en lo sucesivo, «Sumamed»), conocido en el Reino Unido con el nombre de «Azithromycin 500 mg Film-Coated Tablets» (en lo sucesivo, «azitromicina»). En su solicitud indicó que la azitromicina, autorizada en el Reino Unido, y el Sumamed, autorizado en Polonia, eran totalmente idénticos.
Mediante resolución de 13 de junio de 2017, el Presidente de la Oficina denegó dicha solicitud basándose en el artículo 2, punto 7b, de la Ley sobre los medicamentos, después de haber comprobado que la azitromicina había sido autorizada en el Reino Unido con base en una documentación abreviada, como producto equivalente a un medicamento de referencia, mientras que el Sumamed se había comercializado en Polonia sobre la base de una documentación completa, como medicamento de referencia. En la motivación de su resolución, el Presidente de la Oficina señaló, en particular, que la prohibición de restricciones cuantitativas a la importación y de medidas equivalentes que resulta del artículo 34 TFUE no impedía la aplicación de prohibiciones y de restricciones justificadas por razones de protección de la salud y de la vida de las personas.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Delfarma"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "el Presidente de la Oficina"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "el artículo 2, punto 7b, de la Ley sobre los medicamentos"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "Delfarma"->"solicitud de autorización de importación paralela";
  "solicitud de autorización de importación paralela"->"una solicitud de autorización de importación paralela, desde el Reino Unido, del medicamento."[dir=none];
  "solicitud de autorización de importación paralela"->"el Presidente de la Oficina";
  "el Presidente de la Oficina"->"denegó dicha solicitud 13/06/2017";
  "denegó dicha solicitud 13/06/2017"->"Delfarma";
  "denegó dicha solicitud 13/06/2017"->"el artículo 2, punto 7b, de la Ley sobre los medicamentos"[dir=none];
    
}