Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62010CN0094

Case C-94/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 17 February 2010 — Danfoss A/S and Sauer-Danfoss ApS v Skatteministeriet

SL C 100, 17.4.2010, p. 32–32 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
17/02/2010
Date lodged:
17/02/2010
Author:
Sud
Form:
Pravosudna informacija
Authentic language:
danski
Type of procedure:
Prethodno pitanje

17.4.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/32

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 17 February 2010 — Danfoss A/S and Sauer-Danfoss ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-94/10)

2010/C 100/47

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Danfoss A/S and Sauer-Danfoss ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Questions referred

1.

Does Community law preclude a Member State from rejecting a claim for reimbursement brought by an undertaking to which excise duty imposed contrary to a directive has been passed on, where such rejection — in circumstances such as those of the present case — is on the ground that it is not the undertaking that paid the duty to the State?

2.

Does Community law preclude a Member State from rejecting a claim for damages brought by an undertaking to which excise duty imposed contrary to a directive has been passed on, where such rejection — in circumstances such as those of the present case — is on the grounds put forward by the Member State (specifically, that the undertaking is not the directly injured party and that there is no direct causal link between any loss and the conduct giving rise to liability)?
Top