Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62017CN0695

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

IO C 83, 5.3.2018, pp. 11–12 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

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).

Top