ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 17(2) and (5) 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, as amended by Council Directive 2006/69/EC of 24 July 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that: — the expenditure connected with the acquisition of shareholdings in subsidiaries incurred by a holding company which involves itself in their management and which, on that basis, carries out an economic activity must be regarded as belonging to its general expenditure and the value added tax paid on that expenditure must, in principle, be deducted in full, unless certain output economic transactions are exempt from value added tax under Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2006/69, in which case the right to deduct should have effect only in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 17(5) of that directive; — the expenditure connected with the acquisition of shareholdings in subsidiaries incurred by a holding company which involves itself in the management only of some of those subsidiaries and which, with regard to the others, does not, by contrast, carry out an economic activity must be regarded as only partially belonging to its general expenditure, so that the value added tax paid on that expenditure may be deducted only in proportion to that which is inherent to the economic activity, according to the criteria for apportioning defined by the Member States, which when exercising that power, must have regard to the aims and broad logic of the Sixth Directive and, on that basis, provide for a method of calculation which objectively reflects the part of the input expenditure actually to be attributed, respectively, to economic and to non-economic activity, which it is for the national courts to establish.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/16

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

(Case C-360/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Approximation of laws - Directive 2009/48/EC - Toy safety - Limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury and nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys - Commission decision not to approve in full the national provisions notified by the German authorities maintaining the limit values for those substances - Proof of a higher level of protection for human health offered by the national provisions))

(2015/C 294/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents, and by U. Karpenstein, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Mihaylova, M. Patakia and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — A2A SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-89/14) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Determination of the calculation of interest relating to the recovery of aid that is incompatible with the common market - Simple or compound interest - National legislation referring, for the calculation of interest, to Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 - Recovery decision notified before that regulation entered into force))

(2015/C 354/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A2A SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, and Articles 11 and 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Regulation No 659/1999, do not preclude national legislation, such as Article 24(4) of Decree-Law No 185/2008 of 29 November 2008, on urgent measures to support families, work, employment and business, and to restructure the national strategic framework to combat the crisis, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 2 of 28 January 2009, which, by means of a reference to Regulation No 794/2004, provides for the application of compound interest to the recovery of State aid, even though the decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery was adopted and notified to the Member State concerned before that regulation entered into force.

(1) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
4.

Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43 must be interpreted as meaning that: — that provision precludes a national provision according to which, in order for there to be indirect discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, the particular disadvantage must have been brought about for reasons of racial or ethnic origin; — the concept of an ‘apparently neutral’ provision, criterion or practice as referred to in that provision means a provision, criterion or practice which is worded or applied, ostensibly, in a neutral manner, that is to say, having regard to factors different from and not equivalent to the protected characteristic; — the concept of ‘particular disadvantage’ within the meaning of that provision does not refer to serious, obvious or particularly significant cases of inequality, but denotes that it is particularly persons of a given racial or ethnic origin who are at a disadvantage because of the provision, criterion or practice at issue; — assuming that a measure, such as that described in paragraph 1 of this operative part, does not amount to direct discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of the directive, such a measure is then, in principle, liable to constitute an apparently neutral practice putting persons of a given ethnic origin at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b); — such a measure would be capable of being objectively justified by the intention to ensure the security of the electricity transmission network and the due recording of electricity consumption only if that measure did not go beyond what is appropriate and necessary to achieve those legitimate aims and the disadvantages caused were not disproportionate to the objectives thereby pursued. That is not so if it is found, a matter which is for the referring court to determine, either that other appropriate and less restrictive means enabling those aims to be achieved exist or, in the absence of such other means, that that measure prejudices excessively the legitimate interest of the final consumers of electricity inhabiting the district concerned, mainly lived in by inhabitants of Roma origin, in having access to the supply of electricity in conditions which are not of an offensive or stigmatising nature and which enable them to monitor their electricity consumption regularly.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2015 — Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation, Superga Invest v European Commission

(Case C-33/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Actions for annulment - Article 263 TFEU - Admissibility - Unlawful and incompatible aid - Obligation to recover - European Commission decision not to extend the recovery obligation to the successor of the aid beneficiary - Interest in bringing proceedings - Action for damages and for the recovery of aid before the national courts - Locus standi - Appellant not individually concerned))

(2015/C 371/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation, Superga Invest (represented by: B. Vatier and F. Loubières, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Sets aside the Order of the General Court of the European Union in Mory and Others v Commission (T-545/12, EU:T:2013:607);

2) Dismisses as inadmissible the action for annulment brought by Mory SA, Mory Team and Superga Invest against Decision C(2012) 2401 final of the Commission of 4 April 2012 concerning the takeover of assets of the Sernam group as part of its composition with creditors;

3) Orders Mory SA, Mory Team, Superga Invest and the European Commission to bear their own costs relating both to the proceedings at first instance and to the appeal.

(1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/16

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-363/14) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Europol - List of third States and organisations with which Europol is to conclude agreements - Determination of the legal basis - Legal framework applicable after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Secondary legal basis - Distinction between legislative acts and implementing measures - Consultation of the Parliament - Initiative of a Member State or the Commission))

(2015/C 363/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Sitbon, K. Pleśniak and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and J. Škeřík, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Szima and M. Bóra, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

3) Orders the Czech Republic and Hungary to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.
1.

In order to determine whether a rebate scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, implemented by a dominant undertaking is capable of having an exclusionary effect on the market contrary to Article 82 EC, it is necessary to examine all the circumstances of the case, in particular, the criteria and rules governing the grant of the rebates, the extent of the dominant position of the undertaking concerned and the particular conditions of competition prevailing on the relevant market. The fact that the rebate scheme covers the majority of customers on the market may constitute a useful indication as to the extent of that practice and its impact on the market, which may bear out the likelihood of an anti-competitive exclusionary effect.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Gmina Wrocław v Minister Finansów

(Case C-276/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9(1) - Article 13(1) - Taxable persons - Interpretation of the word ‘independently’ - Municipal body - Economic activities carried out by an organisational entity of a municipality other than as a public authority - Whether such an entity may be regarded as a ‘taxable person’ within the meaning of the provisions of Directive 2006/112 - Articles 4(2) and 5(3) TEU))

(2015/C 381/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gmina Wrocław

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(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 bodies governed by public law, such as the municipal budgetary entities at issue in the main proceedings, cannot be regarded as taxable persons for the purposes of value added tax in so far as they do not satisfy the criterion of independence set out in that provision.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
2.

If the failure to fulfil obligations found in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 3 6 40 000 for each six-month period of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Greece (C-440/06, EU:C:2007:642), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment in Commission v Greece (C-440/06, EU:C:2007:642) has been complied with in full, the actual amount of which must be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total amount relating to each of those periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion that the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations whose urban waste water treatment and collection systems have been rendered compliant with the judgment in Commission v Greece (C-440/06, EU:C:2007:642) at the end of the period in question bears to the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations not having such systems on the day of delivery of the present judgment;
1.

Article 25(6) 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 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted pursuant to that provision, such as Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce, by which the European Commission finds that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection, does not prevent a supervisory authority of a Member State, within the meaning of Article 28 of that directive as amended, from examining the claim of a person concerning the protection of his rights and freedoms in regard to the processing of personal data relating to him which has been transferred from a Member State to that third country when that person contends that the law and practices in force in the third country do not ensure an adequate level of protection.
1.

Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/CE of 7 April 1998, and Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an increase in the number of hours of work performed by a worker, the Member States are not obliged to provide that the entitlement to paid annual leave already accrued, and possibly taken, must be recalculated retroactively according to that worker’s new work pattern. A new calculation must, however, be performed for the period during which working time increased.
2.

Article 135(1)(e) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which consist of the exchange of traditional currencies for units of the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency and vice versa, performed in return for payment of a sum equal to the difference between, on the one hand, the price paid by the operator to purchase the currency and, on the other hand, the price at which he sells that currency to his clients, are transactions exempt from VAT, within the meaning of that provision. Article 135(1)(d) and (f) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that such a supply of services does not fall within the scope of application of those provisions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas, Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v ‘Veloserviss’ SIA

(Case C-427/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Post-clearance examination of declarations - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - National rules placing restrictions on re-examination of the results of a post-clearance examination - Powers - Decision on the first post-clearance examination - Incorrect or incomplete information not known on the date of the decision))

(2016/C 048/04)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:‘Veloserviss’ SIA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which a restriction is placed on the customs authorities’ powers to conduct re-examinations or post-clearance examinations and to regularise the situation by fixing a new customs debt, provided that that restriction refers to a three-year period from the time the initial customs debt was incurred, which it is for the national court to verify.

(1) OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/4

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 — Italian Republic v European Commission

(Case C-280/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Regional policy - Regional operational programme (ROP) Puglia (Italy) covered by objective No 1 (2000-2006) - Reduction of the Community financial assistance initially granted by the European Regional Development Fund))

(2016/C 038/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège — Belgium) — Abdoulaye Amadou Tall v Centre public d’action sociale de Huy

(Case C-239/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2005/85/EC - Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status - Article 39 - Right to an effective remedy - Multiple asylum claims - Non-suspensory effect of an appeal against a decision of the competent national authority not to further examine a subsequent application for asylum - Social protection - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 19(2) - Article 47))

(2016/C 068/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Abdoulaye Amadou Tall

Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Huy

Intervener: Agence fédérale pour l’accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, read in the light of Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not confer suspensory effect on an appeal brought against a decision, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, not to further examine a subsequent application for asylum.

(1) OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — APEX GmbH Internationale Spedition v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

(Case C-371/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Dumping - Gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 11(2) - Expiry - Article 13 - Circumvention - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 260/2013 - Validity - Extension of an anti-dumping duty at a date on which the regulation which imposed it is no longer in force - Change in the pattern of trade))

(2016/C 068/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: APEX GmbH Internationale Spedition

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Operative part of the judgment

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 260/2013 of 18 March 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, whether declared as originating in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam or not, is invalid.

(1) OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Quimitéchnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA, José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA v European Commission

(Case C-415/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Cartels - European market in phosphates for animal feed - Fine imposed on the appellants following a settlement procedure - Payment of the fine in instalments - Requirement to provide a bank guarantee at a bank with a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating - Duty to state reasons))

(2016/C 106/08)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellants: Quimitéchnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA, José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA (represented by: J. Calheiros, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2015 in Quimitéchnica.com and José de Mello v Commission;

2. Refers the matter back before the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.