ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a supply of goods by a taxable person established in a first Member State is not exempt from value added tax under that provision where, prior to entering into that supply transaction, the person acquiring the goods, who is identified for value added tax purposes in a second Member State, informs the supplier that the goods will be resold immediately to a taxable person established in a third Member State, before he takes them out of the first Member State and transports them to that third taxable person, provided that that second supply has in fact been carried out and the goods have then been transported from the first Member State to the Member State of the third taxable person. The fact that the first person acquiring the goods is identified for value added tax purposes in a Member State other than that of the place of the first supply or that of the place of the final acquisition is not a criterion for classification of an intra-Community transaction or, in itself, evidence sufficient to show that a transaction is an intra-Community one.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH v Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-84/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark including the word element ‘XKING’ - Opposition by the proprietor of national marks and an international registration including the word element ‘X’ - Rejection of opposition by the Board of Appeal - Likelihood of confusion - Distortion of the evidence))

(2017/C 309/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH (represented by: S.O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes and J. Schumacher, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin (represented by: E. Carrillo, abogada), European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin;

3. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/24

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — European Commission v Frucona Košice a.s.

(Case C-300/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Concept of ‘aid’ - Concept of ‘economic advantage’ - Private creditor test - Conditions of applicability - Application - Investigation obligations on the European Commission))

(2017/C 382/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Walkerová, L. Armati, T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Frucona Košice a.s. (represented by: K. Lasok QC, B. Hartnett, Barrister, J. Holmes QC, and O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG v Bundeskartellanwalt

(Case C-248/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Concentrations between undertakings - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Article 3(1)(b) and (4) - Scope - Definition of ‘concentration’ - Change in the form of control of an existing undertaking which, previously exclusive, becomes joint - Creation of a joint venture performing on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity))

(2017/C 374/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG

Defendant: Bundeskartellanwalt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that a concentration is deemed to arise upon a change in the form of control of an existing undertaking which, previously exclusive, becomes joint, only if the joint venture created by such a transaction performs on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
Case C-289/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Organic products — Control system established by Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 — Concept of ‘direct sale to the final consumer or user’)

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

(Case C-289/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Organic products — Control system established by Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 — Concept of ‘direct sale to the final consumer or user’)’

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for products to be regarded as being sold ‘directly’, within the meaning of that provision, to the final consumer or user, it is necessary for the sale to occur in the presence of both the operator or his sales personnel and the final consumer.

( 1 ) OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili — Malta) — Malta Dental Technologists Association, John Salomone Reynaud v Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina

(Case C-125/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Dental technologists - Conditions governing the practice of the profession in the host Member State - Requirement for the compulsory intermediation of a dental practitioner - Application of that requirement in the case of clinical dental technologists pursuing their profession in the home Member State - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Restriction - Justification - Public interest objective of ensuring the protection of public health - Proportionality))

(2017/C 392/10)

Language of the case: Maltese

Referring court

Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Malta Dental Technologists Association, John Salomone Reynaud

Defendants: Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU, and Article 4(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, must be interpreted to the effect that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which stipulates that the activities of a dental technologist must be pursued in collaboration with a dental practitioner, inasmuch as that requirement is applicable, in accordance with that legislation, to clinical dental technologists who obtained their professional qualifications in another Member State and who wish to pursue their profession in the first Member State.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/7

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — The English Bridge Union Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-90/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption for supplies of services closely linked to sport - Concept of ‘sport’ - Activity characterised by a physical element - Duplicate bridge))

(2017/C 437/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The English Bridge Union Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as duplicate bridge, which is characterised by a physical element that appears to be negligible, is not covered by the concept of ‘sport’ within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — SC Paper Consult SRL v Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bistrița-Năsăud

(Case C-101/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct - Conditions governing the exercise of that right - Article 273 - National measures - Fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance - Invoice issued by a taxpayer declared ‘inactive’ by the tax authorities - Risk of tax evasion - Refusal of the right to deduct - Proportionality - Refusal to take into account evidence of the absence of tax evasion or tax losses - Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment to be delivered - No limitation))

(2017/C 424/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Paper Consult SRL

Defendants: Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bistrița-Năsăud

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which the right to deduct value added tax is refused to a taxable person on the ground that the trader which supplied a service to that taxable person and issued a corresponding invoice, on which the expenditure and the value added tax are indicated separately, has been declared inactive by the tax authorities of a Member State, that declaration of inactivity being public and accessible on the internet to any taxable person in that State, in the case where that refusal of the right to deduct is systematic and final, making it impossible to adduce evidence that there was no tax evasion or loss of tax revenue.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/13

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Wind Inovation 1’ EOOD, in liquidation v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

(Case C-552/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Dissolution of a company resulting in its removal from the value added tax (VAT) register - Obligation to calculate VAT on available assets and to pay the VAT calculated to the State - Maintenance or amendment of the law existing on the date of accession to the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 176 - Effect on the right to deduct - Article 168))

(2018/C 005/17)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Wind Inovation 1’ EOOD, in liquidation

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

Operative part of the judgment

1. Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation pursuant to which the compulsory removal from the value added tax (VAT) register of a company whose dissolution has been ordered by court decision results in the obligation to calculate the input VAT due or paid on the available assets on the date of the dissolution of that company and to pay it to the State, on condition that that company no longer carries out economic transactions as from its dissolution.

2. Directive 2006/112, in particular Article 168 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the compulsory removal from the VAT register of a company whose dissolution has been ordered by court decision results, even where that company continues to carry out economic transactions whilst being placed under liquidation, in the obligation to calculate the input VAT due or paid on the available assets on the date of that dissolution and to pay it to the State and which, therefore, makes the right to deduct subject to compliance with that obligation.

(1) OJ C 22, 23.01.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/9

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwaarden — Netherlands) — Jan Theodorus Arts v Veevoederbedrijf Alpuro BV

(Case C-227/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Single payment scheme - Veal farmer who concluded an integration contract - Contractual term under which the single payment is payable to the integration undertaking - Whether permissible))

(2018/C 005/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwaarden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jan Theodorus Arts

Defendant: Veevoederbedrijf Alpuro BV

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, must be interpreted as not precluding a contractual term under which the amount of aid which a veal farmer is entitled to claim under the single payment scheme is payable to an integration undertaking in the case where the transfer of that aid takes place within the context of reciprocal benefits and obligations negotiated between the parties to the contract.

(1) OJ C 279, 01.08.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/10

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2017 — Telefónica SA v European Commission

(Case C-487/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Portuguese and Spanish telecommunications markets - Non-competition clause contained in an agreement entered into between two companies - Restriction by object - Rights of defence - Refusal to hear witnesses - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances))

(2018/C 052/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Telefónica SA (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo and P. Vidal Martínez, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Telefónica SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 427, 21.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus) — Proceedings brought by A Oy

(Case C-292/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Corporation tax - Directive 90/434/EEC - Article 10(2) - Transfer of assets - Non-resident permanent establishment transferred, in the course of a transfer of assets, to a receiving company also non-resident - Right of the Member State of the transferring company to tax that establishment’s profits or capital gains resulting from the transfer of assets - National legislation providing for immediate taxation of the profits or capital gains in the year of transfer - Collection of the tax due as revenue of the tax year in which the transfer of assets took place))

(2018/C 022/13)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

A Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, where a resident company, in the course of a transfer of assets, transfers a non-resident permanent establishment to a company that is also non-resident, first, provides for the immediate taxation of the capital gains resulting from the transfer and, second, does not allow deferred collection of the tax, whereas in an equivalent national situation such capital gains are not taxed until the disposal of the transferred assets, in so far as that legislation does not allow the deferred collection of the tax.

(1) OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.
2.

Articles 45 and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in accordance with which the disbursement of a national bursary intended to fund training given in another Member State, leading to qualification as a specialist doctor, is conditional upon the recipient doctor practising his profession in that first Member State for a period of five years over a ten-year period following completion of the specialisation or, failing that, upon his repayment of up to 70 % of the amount of the bursary received, together with interest, unless the measures laid down by that legislation do not actually contribute to the pursuit of the objectives of protection of public health and of the financial equilibrium of the social security system and go beyond what is necessary in that regard, which is a matter for the referring court to assess.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/20

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner

(Case C-434/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘personal data’ - Written answers submitted by a candidate in a professional examination - Examiner’s comments with respect to those answers - Article 12(a) and (b) - Extent of the data subject’s rights to access and rectification))

(2018/C 072/25)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Nowak

Defendant: Data Protection Commissioner

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the written answers submitted by a candidate at a professional examination and any comments made by an examiner with respect to those answers constitute personal data, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
1.

Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed periods, all the measures necessary for the implementation of Commission Decision 2012/541/EU of 22 February 2012 on the State aid SA.26534 (C 27/10 ex NN 6/09) implemented by Greece in favour of United Textiles SA, and by failing to inform the Commission adequately of the measures taken pursuant to that decision, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision as and under the TFEU.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/16

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Trioplast Industrier AB v European Commission

(Case C-364/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in industrial plastic bags - Formal notice from the European Commission to the appellant for the payment of default interest on the amount of the fine imposed - Action for annulment and for damages))

(2018/C 072/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Trioplast Industrier AB (represented by: T. Pettersson, F. Sjövall and A. Johansson, advokater)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and P. Rossi, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Trioplast Industrier AB to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA

(Case C-359/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Applicable legislation - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(1)(a) - Posted workers - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 11(1)(a) - E 101 certificate - Probative value - Certificate fraudulently obtained or relied on))

(2018/C 123/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA

Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, and Article 11(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down rules for the application of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, must be interpreted as meaning that, when an institution of a Member State to which workers have been posted makes an application to the institution that issued E 101 certificates for the review and withdrawal of those certificates in the light of evidence, collected in the course of a judicial investigation, which supports the conclusion that those certificates were fraudulently obtained or relied on, and the issuing institution fails to take that evidence into consideration for the purpose of reviewing the grounds for the issue of those certificates, a national court may, in the context of proceedings brought against persons suspected of having used posted workers ostensibly covered by such certificates, disregard those certificates if, on the basis of that evidence and with due regard to the safeguards inherent in the right to a fair trial which must be granted to those persons, it finds the existence of such fraud.

(1) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.