ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 — Evo Bus

(Case C‑55/16) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Common system of value added tax — Right to reimbursement — Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC — Conditions for obtaining reimbursement — Imposition of conditions other than those laid down in Articles 3 and 4 — Obligation to provide proof of payment of the tax — Whether permissible)’

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Refund of the tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country — General obligation for the taxable person to provide proof of payment of value added tax in order to obtain the reimbursement — Unlawful (Council Directive 79/1072, Art. 6) (see para. 31, operative part)

Operative part

Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, precludes legislation of a Member State under which, in order to exercise their right to reimbursement of value added tax, taxable persons are subject to a general obligation to provide proof of payment of that tax.

( 1 ) OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 —

Spinosa Costruzioni Generali and Melfi

(Case C‑162/16) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2014/24/EU — Participation in a tendering procedure — Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work — Judicial obligation to include such a reference — Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Questions identical to those already ruled on in the case-law—Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 16-18)

2. Approximation of laws—Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts—Directive 2004/18—Principle of equal treatment of tenderers—Obligation of transparency—Exclusion of an economic operator which has not complied with an obligation which was not expressly laid down in the contract documentation or in the national law from participating in a contract—No possibility of rectifying that omission—Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, Art. 27(1) and 49 to 51) (see paras 29-32, operative part)

Operative part

The principle of equality of treatment and the duty of transparency, as implemented by Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of a tenderer from a procedure for the award of a public works contract as a result of the tender’s failure to comply with a requirement to indicate clearly in the tender the business charges relating to safety and security at work — for which the penalty for non-compliance is exclusion from the procedure — a requirement which arises, not expressly from the procurement documents or from national legislation, but from an interpretation of that legislation and the filling of gaps in those documents by the national court adjudicating at last instance. The principles of equality of treatment and of proportionality must also be interpreted as not precluding such a tenderer from being afforded the opportunity of remedying the situation and satisfying that requirement within a time limit set by the awarding authority.

( 1 ) OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2016 —

Banco Popular Español and PL Salvador

(Case C‑7/16) ( *1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Assignment of a claim — Right of the debtor to extinguish his debt — Conditions governing the exercise of that right’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 16, 17)

2. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Scope — Exclusion provided for contractual terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions — National legislation relating to the right of the person owing a debt that has been assigned by the creditor to a third party to extinguish his debt by reimbursing to that third party the price paid by the latter in respect of that assignment — Inapplicability of the directive (Council Directive 93/13, Recital 13 and Art. 1(2)) (see paras 21-27, operative part)

Operative part

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to the right of the person owing a debt that has been assigned by the creditor to a third party to extinguish his debt by reimbursing to that third party the price paid by the latter in respect of that assignment.

( *1 ) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 —

Synergy Hellas v Commission

(Case C‑45/16 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — ‘Multi-level patient-specific artery and artherogenesis model for outcome prediction, decision support treatment, and virtual hand-on training (ARTreat) contract’, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Termination of that contract due to irregularities committed in the performance of another contract concluded with the European Commission — Good faith — Legitimate expectation the contract would not be terminated)

Appeal—Grounds—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted—Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence—Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 51, first para., and 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

(see paras 23, 41)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis is ordered to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 18 October 2016 — EMA v Pari Pharma

(Case C‑406/16 P(R))

‛Appeal — Order for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure challenged before the General Court — Change in circumstances — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) submitted as part of an application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market — Decision to grant a third party access to the documents’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Decision of the European Medicines Agency granting a third party access to information submitted by an undertaking in the context of its application for authorisation to market a medicinal product — Grant of interim measures by the EU judicature — Subsequent conclusion of an agreement between the applicant and the third party on the non-disclosure of information — Interim measures which have become devoid of purpose — Annulment (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 160) (see paras 55-61)

Operative part

1. The order of the President of the General Court of the European Union of 23 May 2016, Pari Pharma v EMA (T‑235/15 R, not published, EU:T:2016:309), is set aside.

2. The order of the President of the General Court of the European Union of 1 September 2015, Pari Pharma v EMA (T‑235/15 R, EU:T:2015:587), is cancelled.
Procedure—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Signed original of the application not submitted before expiry of the time limit—Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(6))

(see paras 25, 26, 49)
Judicial proceedings—Duration of the proceedings before the General Court—Reasonable time—Non-compliance—Consequences—Length having no impact on the outcome of the dispute—Annulment of the General Court’s decision—Not included

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para.)

(see para. 18)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 — Faggiano

(Case C‑524/16) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — No need to adjudicate)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Case pending before the national court rendered devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(Art. 267 TFEU)

(see paras 19-25, operative part)

Operative part

There is no need to adjudicate on the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Corte dei Conti (Court of Auditors, Italy) by decision of 5 July 2016.

( 1 ) JO C 14 du 16.1.2017.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2017 — Kerr

(Case C‑615/16) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 15(2) and Article 135(1)(f) — Rights to use immovable property — Exemptions — Scope — Concept of ‘negotiation’)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context—Scope—Request giving sufficient details of the relevant facts and legislation—Ability of the Court to provide a helpful answer to the referring court—Admissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see paras 20-23)

2. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation—Common system of value added tax—Exemptions—Transactions relating to other securities—Scope—Client hunting and promotion of services relating to rights of use over immovable property by an intermediary ensuring the sale of that property on behalf of the undertakings marketing it—Included—Condition—Transactions which may be qualified as ‘financial transactions’—Criteria—Acquisition of a shareholding in a company or obtaining a debt ensuring the attribution of ownership of, or usufruct rights over, immovable property (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 135(1)(f)) (see paras 30-32, 34, 35)

3. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation—Common system of value added tax—Exemptions—Exemptions for other activities—Negotiation—Meaning—Client hunting and promotion of services relating to rights of use over immovable property intended for sale—Included—Conditions—Activity of an intermediary paid for the provision of a service to one of the parties to a contract relating to financial transactions concerning securities—Service leading to the signing of the contract between the parties without the intermediary having any interest in its content—Verification a matter for the national court (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 15(2) and 135(1)(f)) (see para. 47, operative part)

Operative part

Article 15(2) and Article 135(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘negotiation’, within the meaning of the latter provision, may relate to an activity, such as that developed by the applicant in the main proceedings, provided that that activity is that of an intermediary paid to provide a service to one of the parties to a contract concerning financial transactions in respect of title to property, that service consisting of taking the necessary steps to ensure that the vendor and buyer sign that contract, without the intermediary himself signing the contract and, in any event, without that intermediary having any interest in the content of that contract. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are fulfilled in the case before it.

( 1 ) OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
10

In that context, the referring court considers that, in order to interpret the concept of ‘cancellation’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 261/2004, it is necessary, in accordance with the judgment of 13 October 2011, Sousa Rodríguez and Others (C‑83/10, EU:C:2011:652), to have recourse to the term ‘itinerary’, which is defined by the Court as the journey to be made by the aircraft from the airport of departure to the airport of arrival according to a fixed schedule, that is to say, the aircraft must depart in accordance with the scheduled itinerary and must also reach its intended destination as it appears in that itinerary. In that regard, it considers that it is clear from the judgment of 19 November 2009, Sturgeon and Others (C‑402/07 and C‑432/07, EU:C:2009:716), that the itinerary is an essential element of the flight, as the flight must be operated in accordance with the carrier’s pre-arranged planning. That court also observes that, having regard to the distinction that must be made between delay and cancellation, a flight may be regarded as cancelled only if the carrier transported the passengers on another flight, the original planning of which differs from that of the flight initially scheduled. On that basis, the referring court concluded that the itinerary is an essential element of the flight.
Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Analysis of a new and important point of law

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 144(b))

(see paras 24, 26)
Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Signature by a lawyer—Application signed by a lawyer not authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the European Economic Area Agreement—Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, fourth para.)

(see paras 6, 7)
2.

Actions for annulment—Jurisdiction of the EU judicature—Limits—Competence to review the legality of measures not emanating from the institutions, organs or bodies of the Union—Decision of the European Court of Human Rights—Absence (Article 263, first para., TFEU) (see para. 12)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 — Natural Instinct v M.I. Industries

(Case C‑218/17 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Application for registration of the figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended — Opposition proceedings — Genuine use of the earlier mark)

Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see paras 4, 5)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted—Plea alleging distortion of the facts—Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

(see paras 28, 30, 33)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 —

Geocycle Bulgaria

(Case C‑314/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Principles of fiscal neutrality and effectiveness — Reverse charge regime — Refusal to allow the recipient of an invoice to deduct input VAT — Decision of the tax authorities establishing a tax payable by the recipient of goods)

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation—Common system of value added tax—Deduction of input tax—Reverse charge procedure—Taxable person liable for value added tax as the recipient of goods or services—Tax unduly invoiced to and levied from the supplier of the goods or services—Decision of the tax authorities establishing a tax chargeable to the recipient—No possibility to rectify the tax unduly charged—Refusal of the right to deduct VAT upstream from the addressee of the invoice—Infringement of the principles of fiscal neutrality and effectiveness

(Council Directive 2006/112)

(see para. 35, operative part.)

Operative part

The principles of fiscal neutrality and effectiveness of the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to allow the recipient of a supply to deduct input value added tax, where, with respect to the same transaction, value added tax is collected a first time from the provider of the goods or service, since he included it on the invoice he issued, then a second time from the purchaser, in situations in which national legislation does not provide for the possibility of adjusting the value added tax where there is a tax adjustment notice.

( 1 ) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 October 2017 — OJ

(Case C‑321/17)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information regarding the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying why an answer to the questions referred is necessary — Manifest inadmissibility)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice—Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 12-21, 23, operative part)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium), by decision of 11 May 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 May 2018 — Yanchev

(Case C‑481/17) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Aid scheme authorised by the European Commission — Investment aid in the agricultural sector — Tax exemption — Tax relief on corporation tax — Conditions — Refusal to grant individual aid under that aid scheme)

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law—Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see para. 19)

2. State aid—General aid scheme approved by the Commission—Investment aid in the agricultural sector—Tax relief on corporation tax—National legislation not granting any aid to taxable persons who have debts towards the State—Lawfulness (Art. 108(3) TFEU) (see paras 22, 24, operative part)

Operative part

Decision C(2011) 863 final of the Commission of 11 February 2011 concerning the award of State aid pursuant to Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU and authorising State aid No 546/2010 of the Republic of Bulgaria for investment in agricultural holdings in the form of corporation tax relief, must be interpreted as not precluding that Member State from refusing the award of State aid under that scheme on the ground that the applicant does not meet a condition, laid down in national law, according to which no aid can be awarded to a taxpayer who has debts towards the State, notwithstanding the fact that that decision does not expressly lay down such a condition.

( 1 ) OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.
Order of the vice-President of the Court of 27 February 2018 — Czech Republic v Parliament and Council

(Case C‑482/17 R) ( 1 )

(Application for interim measures — Article 278 TFEU — Suspension of the operation of an EU act — Directive (EU) 2017/853 amending Directive 91/477/EEC — Monitoring of the acquisition and holding of fire arms — Urgency)

1. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Weighing-up of the interests—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(3)) (see para 22)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof—Damage which a Member State may invoke (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(3)) (see paras 23, 24)

3. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Serious and irreparable damage—Contested measure infringing a superior rule of law—Condition not automatically fulfilled (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(3)) (see para 38)

4. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Significant changes made to the legislation applicable in the area—No imminent risk of serious financial loss—No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(3)) (see para 39)

5. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Serious and irreparable damage—Financial loss—Damage which may subsequently be made good by compensation or by means of an action for damages—Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(3)) (see para 54)

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.

( 1 ) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.