In the order made on March 23, 2017 the president of the general court dismissed Hungary\u2019s application for interim measures, filed parallel with the action for the annulment of the Commission\u2019s decision concerning the advertisement tax.<\/p>\n
By a separate document, lodged in January, Hungary claimed for the suspension of the operation of the contested decision until the General Court delivered its judgment on the main action and to order the Commission to pay the costs. According to the EU law the Court may order suspension of operation of an act if it is established that such an order is justified, prima facie, in fact and in law, and that it is urgent in so far as, in order to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the applicant\u2019s interests, it must be made. The General Court found that in this case the requirement of urgency has not been satisfied, thus Hungary\u2019s application for interim measures must be dismissed.<\/p>\n
The order otherwise reveals that the Hungarian government meanwhile indicated it\u2019s intention to the Commission that from the two possible solutions mentioned in our previous newsletter, Hungary would choose to execute the Commission\u2019s decision by the latter, i.e. by repaying the total tax collected to the taxpayers, which means Hungary should waive nearly HUF 20 billion tax revenue.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In the order made on March 23, 2017 the president of the general court dismissed Hungary\u2019s application for interim measures, filed parallel with the action for the annulment of the Commission\u2019s decision concerning the advertisement tax. By a separate document, lodged in January, Hungary claimed for the suspension of the operation of the contested decision<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[45],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n