ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/6

Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — X v Minister van Financiën

(Case C-302/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 43 EC - Motor vehicles - Use in a Member State of a private motor vehicle registered in another Member State - Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State when it was first used on the national road network and also in the second Member State when it was registered - Vehicle used by the citizen concerned for both private use and for going, from the Member State of origin, to the place of work situated in the first Member State)

2014/C 39/09

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X

Respondent: Minister van Financiën

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU, 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — National legislation imposing a registration tax when a motor vehicle is first used on the national road network — Tax owed by a person residing in two Member States, including the Member State concerned, and using her motor vehicle there on a permanent basis — Vehicle registered in the other Member State — Exercise of powers of taxation by both Member States.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 43 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which a motor vehicle, which is registered and is already the subject of taxation as a result of its registration in another Member State, is the subject of a tax when it is first used on the national road network, where that vehicle is intended, essentially, to be actually used on a long-term basis in both those Member States or is, in fact, used in that manner, as long as that tax is not discriminatory.

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/15

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium)) — Guido Imfeld, Nathalie Garcet v État belge

(Case C-303/12) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Equal treatment - Income tax - Legislation for the avoidance of double taxation - Income earned in a State other than the State of residence - Method of exemption subject to progressivity in the State of residence - Account taken, in part, of personal and family circumstances - Loss of certain tax advantages linked to the personal and family circumstances of the worker)

2014/C 52/23

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Guido Imfeld, Nathalie Garcet

Defendant: État belge

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Article 39 EC — Provisions of agreements, and national legislation, relating to double taxation — Occupational income wholly earned and taxed in a Member State other than the Member State of residence — Account taken in part, by the Member State in which the income is earned, of personal and family circumstances — The income tax payable in the Member State of residence calculated in accordance with the method of exemption subject to progressivity — Loss of tax advantages linked to personal and family circumstances.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU is to be interpreted as precluding the application of the tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has the effect that a couple residing in that Member State and earning income both in that Member State and in another Member State does not in fact receive a specific tax advantage, owing to the rules for offsetting it, whereas that couple would receive that tax advantage if the member of the couple earning the higher income did not earn his entire income in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.2012
2.

A taxable person may not claim, in accordance with Article 168 of Directive 2006/112 or the national provision transposing it, a right to deduct input value added tax where, as a result of an exemption provided for by national law in infringement of point (i) of Article 132(1) of that directive, the input supply of its educational services are not subject to value added tax. That taxable person may, however, rely on the incompatibility of that exemption with point (i) of Article 132(1) of Directive 2006/112 so that that exemption is not applied to it where, even taking account of the discretion granted to Member States, that taxable person could not objectively be regarded as an organisation having objects similar to those of an educational body governed by public law, within the meaning of that provision, which is to be determined by the national court. In the latter case, the educational services supplied by that taxable person will be subject to value added tax and that person could then benefit from the right to deduct input value added tax.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/16

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-362/12) (1)

(Judicial protection - Principle of effectiveness - Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations - Restitution of sums paid but not due - Remedies - National legislation - Curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies without notice and retroactively)

2014/C 52/26

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation

Defendants: Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU — National taxes contrary to European Union law — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Coexistence, under national law, of two alternative causes of action open to taxpayers for the purpose of seeking repayment of sums due, one of which provides for a longer period within which an action may be brought than the other — National legislation which reduces, retroactively and without prior notice, the longer of the two limitation periods — Whether compatible with the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

Operative part of the judgment

1. In a situation in which, under national law, taxpayers have a choice between two possible causes of action as regards the recovery of tax levied in breach of European Union law, one of which benefits from a longer limitation period, the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations preclude national legislation curtailing that limitation period without notice and retroactively;

2. It makes no difference to the answer to the first question that, at the time when the taxpayer issued its claim, the availability of the cause of action affording the longer limitation period had been recognised only recently by a lower court and was not definitively confirmed by the highest judicial authority until later.

(1) OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/12

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres

(Case C-267/12) (1)

(Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment - Collective agreement which restricts a benefit in respect of pay and working conditions to employees who marry - Exclusion of partners entering into a civil solidarity pact - Discrimination based on sexual orientation)

2014/C 52/18

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frédéric Hay

Defendant: Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive No 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Admissibility of a national collective agreement which reserves an advantage in respect of pay and working conditions to employees who marry and excludes from the benefit of that advantage same-sex partners who have entered into a civil solidarity pact — Discrimination based on sexual orientation — Possibility of justifying indirect discrimination by a legitimate, appropriate and necessary aim.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding a provision in a collective agreement, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, under which an employee who concludes a civil solidarity pact with a person of the same sex is not allowed to obtain the same benefits, such as days of special leave and a salary bonus, as those granted to employees on the occasion of their marriage, where the national rules of the Member State concerned do not allow persons of the same sex to marry, in so far as, in the light of the objective of and the conditions relating to the grant of those benefits, that employee is in a comparable situation to an employee who marries.

(1) OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.
1.

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining the tax reduction in respect of contributions paid to a savings pension in so far as that reduction is applicable only in respect of payments to institutions and funds established in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/6

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — United Kingdom) — Nnamdi Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-378/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 16(2) and (3) - Right of permanent residence of third-country nationals who are family members of a Union citizen - Taking into consideration of periods of imprisonment of those nationals)

2014/C 85/10

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nnamdi Onuekwere

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — Interpretation of Article 16 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Right of permanent residence — Concept of legal residence for a period of five years in the host Member State — Possibility of a period of imprisonment being taken into account.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 16(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the periods of imprisonment in the host Member State of a third-country national, who is a family member of a Union citizen who has acquired the right of permanent residence in that Member State during those periods, cannot be taken into consideration in the context of the acquisition by that national of the right of permanent residence for the purposes of that provision.

2. Article 16(2) and (3) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that the continuity of residence is interrupted by periods of imprisonment in the host Member State of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who has acquired the right of permanent residence in that Member State during those periods.

(1) OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.
1)

The concept of ‘intentional non-compliance’ within the meaning of Article 67(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures, must be interpreted as requiring an infringement of the rules on cross-compliance by a beneficiary of aid who seeks a state of non-compliance with those rules or who, without seeking such a state, accepts the possibility that it may occur. European Union law does not preclude a national provision which, like that at issue in the main proceedings, gives a high probative value to the criterion of the existence of a long-established, settled policy, in so far as the beneficiary of aid has the possibility if appropriate of adducing evidence of the lack of intent in his conduct;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte, Portugal) — IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos v Navileme — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda

(Case C-509/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 52 and Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Grant of a recreational boating licence - Condition of residency in the issuing country - Restriction for non-residents - Maintaining maritime safety - Public policy)

2014/C 93/20

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos

Defendant: Navileme — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte — Portugal — Interpretation of Articles 18, 20, 45, 52 and 62 TFEU — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Free movement of persons and freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Provision imposing a condition of residency within the national territory for the grant of a recreational boating licence.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52 and Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a condition of residence within the national territory for European Union citizens seeking to obtain a recreational boating licence in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/5

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Caixa d’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona v Generalidad de Cataluña

(Case C-139/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Transactions concerning the sale of shares and involving the transfer of interests in immovable property - Imposition of an indirect tax distinct from VAT - Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU - Purely internal situation))

2014/C 142/05

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Caixa d’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona

Respondent: Generalidad de Cataluña

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Art. 13B(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption of transactions involving shares referred to in Art. 13B(d)(5) — Exception — Transactions concerning the sale of shares and involving the transfer of interests in immovable property — National law subjecting the acquisition of the majority of the capital of a company the assets of which are essentially shares in immovable property to an indirect tax distinct from VAT

Operative part of the judgment

Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, such as Article 108 of Law 24/1988 on the Stock Market (Ley 24/1988 del Mercado de Valores) of 28 July 1988, as amended by Law 18/1991 on Income Tax payable by Natural Persons (Ley 18/1991 del Impuesto sobre la Renta de las Personas Físicas) of 6 June 1991, which makes the acquisition of the majority of the capital of a company, the assets of which essentially comprise immovable property, subject to an indirect tax other than value added tax, such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/4

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento (Italy)) — Lorenzo Amatori and Others v Telecom Italia SpA, Telecom Italia Information Technology Srl

(Case C-458/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Transfer of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfer of employment relationships in the event of a legal transfer of part of a business that cannot be identified as a pre-existing autonomous economic entity))

2014/C 129/04

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Lorenzo Amatori, Adrian Gottardi

Defendants: Telecom Italia SpA, Telecom Italia Information Technology Srl

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Trento — Interpretation of Article 1(1)(a) and (b) and Article 3(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Transfer to another undertaking, on the basis of an agreement, of a part of a business which cannot be identified as a pre-existing independent economic entity and over which, after the transfer, the transferring undertaking will exercise dominant control through commercial relations and a sharing of business risk — National rules under which the taking over of employment relations is not conditional upon the consent of the employees transferred.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, on the transfer of part of the undertaking, permits the transferee to take over the employment relationship from the transferor if that part of the undertaking does not constitute a functionally autonomous economic entity existing before the transfer.

2. Article 1(1)(a) and (b) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which enables the transferee to take over the employment relationships from the transferor if, after the transfer of part of an undertaking concerned exercises extensive, overriding powers over the transferee.

(1) OJ C 389, 15.12.2012
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 April 2014 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-288/12) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/46/EC - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data - Article 28(1) - National supervisory authorities - Independence - National legislation prematurely bringing to an end the term served by the supervisory authority - Creation of a new supervisory authority and appointment of another person as head of that authority))

2014/C 175/06

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Talabér-Ritz and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: I. Chatelier, A. Buchta, Z. Belényessy and H. Kranenborg, Agents)

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — Obligation of Member States to provide that the application of measures adopted pursuant to Directive 95/46 is monitored by one or more public authorities exercising their functions with complete independence — Adoption of national legislation ending the six-year term of the data protection supervisor before its expiry — Creation of a national authority for data protection and freedom of information — Appointment, for a nine-year term, of a person other than the data protection supervisor as head of that authority

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Declares that, by prematurely bringing to an end the term served by the supervisory authority for the protection of personal data, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data;

2) Orders Hungary to pay the costs;

3) Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 227, 28. 7. 2012.