ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen — Germany) — X GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Bremen

(Case C-431/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Corporation tax - Determination of the taxable income of companies - Transactions featuring foreign elements - Obligation to provide fiscal documentation of business relations between parties with a relationship of interdependence - Estimate of the taxable income and surcharge by way of a penalty)

(2022/C 463/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Finanzamt Bremen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation under which, in the first place, the taxpayer is subject to an obligation to provide documentation on the nature and content of, as well as on the economic and legal bases for, prices and other terms and conditions of his, her or its cross-border business transactions, with parties with which he, she or it has a relationship of interdependence, in capital or other aspects, enabling that taxpayer or those parties to exercise a definite influence over the other, and which provides, in the second place, in the event of infringement of that obligation, not only that his, her or its taxable income in the Member State concerned is rebuttably presumed to be higher than that which has been declared, and the tax authorities may carry out an estimate to the detriment of the taxpayer, but also that a surcharge of an amount equivalent to at least 5 % and at most 10 % of the excess income determined is imposed, with a minimum amount of EUR 5 000, unless non-compliance with that obligation is excusable or if the fault involved is minor.

(1) OJ C 401, 4.10.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 November 2022 (request for a preliminary request from the Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Taxi Horn Tours BV v gemeente Weert, gemeente Nederweert, Touringcars VOF

(Case C-631/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Award of contracts - Article 2(1)(10) - Concept of an ‘economic operator’ - Inclusion of a general partnership without legal personality - Article 19(2) and Article 63 - Joint undertaking or reliance on the capacities of other entities of persons linked with that undertaking - Article 59(1) - Obligation to submit one or several European Single Procurement Documents (ESPD) - Purpose of the ESPD)

(2023/C 7/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Taxi Horn Tours BV

Defendants: gemeente Weert, gemeente Nederweert, Touringcars VOF

Operative part of the judgment

Article 59(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(10) and Article 63 of that directive, and with Annex 1 to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/7 of 5 January 2016 establishing the standard form for the European Single Procurement Document,

must be interpreted as meaning that

a joint undertaking which, although not a legal person, has the form of a firm governed by the national legislation of a Member State, which appears on the commercial register of that Member State, which may have been set up on either a temporary or a permanent basis and all the joint partners of which are active on the same market as that joint undertaking and are jointly and severally liable for the proper performance of the obligations which it has entered into, must provide the contracting authority with only its own European Single Procurement Document (ESPD) when it intends to participate, on an individual basis, in a public procurement procedure or to submit a tender if it shows that it can perform the contract in question using only its own personnel and materials. If, on the other hand, for the performance of a public contract, that joint undertaking considers that it must seek the own resources of certain partners, it must be regarded as having recourse to the capacities of other entities, within the meaning of Article 63 of Directive 2014/24, and must then submit not only an ESPD for itself, but also an ESPD for each of the partners whose capacities it intends to use.

(1) OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.
1.

Article 2 of Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities, must be interpreted as meaning that: the measure by which a third-country national is transferred from the territory of one Member State to that of another Member State, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, falls within the scope of the concept of ‘expulsion order’.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Cafpi SA, Aviva assurances SA v Enedis SA

(Case C-691/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 85/374/EEC - Article 3 - Liability for defective products - Meaning of ‘producer’ - Operator of an electricity distribution network changing the electricity voltage level for distribution)

(2023/C 24/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Cafpi SA, Aviva assurances SA

Defendant: Enedis SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999,

must be interpreted as meaning that an electricity distribution system operator must be regarded as a ‘producer’, within the meaning of that provision, where it changes the voltage level of electricity with a view to its distribution to the final customer.

(1) OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.
4.

Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a finding, when dealing with an action brought against a decision awarding a public contract, of an obligation on the part of the contracting authority to disclose to the applicant information which was wrongly treated as confidential and of a breach of the right to an effective remedy on account of the failure to disclose that information, that finding does not necessarily have to lead to the adoption, by that contracting authority, of a new contract award decision, provided that the national procedural law permits the court hearing the case to adopt, during the proceedings, measures which restore observance of the right to an effective remedy or allow it to find that the applicant may bring a new action against the award decision that has already been made. The time limit for bringing such an action must not start to run until the applicant has access to all the information which had been wrongly classified as confidential.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie — Poland) — X sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Z

(Case C-419/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/7/EU - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Article 2(1) - Concept of ‘commercial transactions’ - Compensation for recovery costs incurred by the creditor due to late payment by the debtor - Article 6 - Fixed minimum sum of EUR 40 - Several late payments for supplies of goods or services under a single contract)

(2023/C 35/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X sp. z o.o. sp.k.

Defendant: Z

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as meaning that: the concept of ‘commercial transactions’ referred to therein covers each successive delivery of goods or provision of services carried out under a single contract.

2. Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/7, read in conjunction with Article 4 of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that: where a single contract provides for successive deliveries of goods or provision of services, each requiring payment within a specified period, the fixed minimum sum of EUR 40 by way of compensation for recovery costs is payable to the creditor for each late payment.

(1) OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — AAS ‘BTA Baltic Insurance Company’ v Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs, Tieslietu ministrija

(Case C-769/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 18(1) - Principles of equal treatment, transparency and proportionality - Decision to withdraw an invitation to tender - Tenders submitted separately by two tenderers belonging to the same economic operator and constituting the two most economically advantageous tenders - Refusal of the successful tenderer to sign the contract - Decision of the contracting authority to refuse the tender of the next tenderer, terminate the procedure and issue a new call for tenders)

(2023/C 35/20)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AAS ‘BTA Baltic Insurance Company’

Defendants: Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs, Tieslietu ministrija

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of proportionality, within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC,

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires the contracting authority to terminate a public procurement procedure where, in the event of withdrawal of the tenderer originally selected for having submitted the most economically advantageous tender, the tenderer which submitted the next most economically advantageous tender constitutes with the tenderer originally selected a single economic operator.

(1) OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — M.A.

(Case C-72/22 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Asylum and immigration policy - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 4 - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Articles 6 and 7 - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection - Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2013/33/EU - Article 8 - Detention of the applicant - Ground for detention - Protection of national security or public order - Detention of the applicant for having entered the territory of the European Union unlawfully)

(2022/C 318/25)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.A.

Intervener: Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 6 and 7(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which, in the event of a declaration of a state of war or a state of emergency or a declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, illegally staying third-country nationals are de facto denied the opportunity of having access, in the territory of that Member State, to the procedure for examining an application for international protection.

2. Article 8(2) and (3) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of persons seeking international protection must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, in the event of a declaration of a state of war or a state of emergency or a declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, an applicant for asylum may be detained on the sole ground that his or her stay in the territory of that Member State is unlawful.

(1) OJ C 171, 25.4.2022.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/32

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 11 December 2007 — Tesco Stores Ltd v MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-493/06 P) (1)

(2008/C 64/47)

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/20

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel Hasselt (Belgium)) — NV de Nationale Loterij v BVBA Customer Service Agency

(Case C-525/06) (1)

(Appeal against a judgment making a reference for a preliminary ruling - Appeal court giving judgment itself in the main proceedings - No need to reply)

2009/C 141/34

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van koophandel Hasselt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NV de Nationale Loterij

Defendant: BVBA Customer Service Agency

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van koophandel te Hasselt — Interpretation of Article 49 EC — National lottery holding on the territory of a Member State a statutory monopoly seeking to limit addiction to gambling but advertising regularly in order to promote participation in the lottery — National legislation prohibiting the sale by other undertakings seeking to make a profit, without authorisation of the national lottery, of group participation forms

Operative part

There is no need to reply to the reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C-525/06.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/37

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 10 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-416/06) (1)

(2008/C 209/59)

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/14

Order of the Court of 29 November 2007 — Eurostrategies SPRL v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-122/07) (1)

(Appeals - Order for removal from the Register - Discontinuance - Costs)

(2008/C 64/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurostrategies SPRL (represented by: R. Lang and S. Crosby, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and I. Hadjiyiannis, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 1 December 2006 in Case T-203/06 Eurostrategies SPRL v Commission of the European Communities removing the case from the register of the Court of First Instance and ordering the applicant to pay the costs.

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Eurostrategies SPRL is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/40

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-382/07) (1)

(2008/C 51/73)

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/24

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 30 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-22/07) (1)

(2008/C 92/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/24

Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-435/07) (1)

(2008/C 79/47)

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/30

Order of the President of the Court of 5 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-325/07) (1)

(2008/C 171/52)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/28

Order of the President of the Court of 21 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-255/07) (1)

(2008/C 128/57)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/17

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs, Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA

(Case C-386/07) (1)

(Rules of procedure - Articles 92(1) and 104(3) - Community competition rules - National rules concerning lawyers' fees - Setting of professional scales of charges - Partial inadmissibility - Answers to questions which may be deduced from the case-law of the Court)

(2008/C 209/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties

Applicants: Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA

Defendants: Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA

Intervener: Azienda Sanitaria locale ULSS No 15 (Alta Padovana, Regione Veneto, Italy)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 10 and 81(1) EC and Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) — Fixing by a national professional organisation of mandatory tariffs for lawyers' services subject to ministerial approval — National rules prohibiting judges in decisions on costs from derogating from the set minimum fees

Operative part of the order

1. Articles 10 EC and 81 EC do not preclude a national law which in principle prohibits derogation from minimum fees approved by ministerial decree, on the basis of a draft drawn up by a professional body of members of the Bar such as the Consiglia nazionale forense, and which also prohibits the judge, when he decides the amount of costs that the unsuccessful party must pay to the other party, from derogating from those minimum fees.

2. The third question referred by the Consiglio di Stato by decision of 13 January 2006 is clearly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/30

Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 1 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — CEPAV DUE — Consorzio ENI per l'Alta Velocità, Consorzio COCIV, Consorzio IRICAV DUE v Office of the President of the Council of Ministers, Ministry of Transport and Others

(Case C-351/07) (1)

(2009/C 69/57)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/22

Order of the President of the Court of 18 August 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester — United Kingdom) — Azlan Group plc v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

(Case C-389/07) (1)

(2008/C 313/35)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 11/19

Order of the President of the Court of 11 August 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — AXA Belgium SA v État Belge, Administration de la TVA, de l’enregistrement et des domains (État Belge), Administration de l’inspection spéciale des impôts, inspection de Mons 3 (État Belge)

(Case C-168/07) (1)

2010/C 11/31

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/34

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 12 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel Brussel (Belgium)) — Beecham Group plc, SmithKline Beecham plc, Glaxo Group Ltd, Stafford-Miller Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare NV, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare BV v Andacon NV

(Case C-132/07) (1)

2009/C 141/61

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Second Chamber of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/18

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 14 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-71/08) (1)

(2009/C 6/35)

Language of the case: Czech

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.