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 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)

    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