ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘Hydro Energo’

(Case C-340/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Tariff heading 7407 - Copper bars, rods and profiles - Hot-rolled copper or copper alloy ingots in a rectangular shape)

(2020/C 271/24)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant: SIA ‘Hydro Energo’

Operative part of the judgment

Heading 7407 of the Combined Nomenclature, as set out in Annex I of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that copper or copper alloy ingots in a rectangular shape, the thickness of which exceeds one-tenth of the width and which are hot-rolled, but which have irregular pores, holes and cracks in their cross-section are capable of falling under that heading.

(1) OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — HF v Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler

(Case C-374/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Adjustment of deductions - Variation in the deduction entitlement - Capital goods used for both taxed and exempt transactions - Cessation of the activity giving rise to the right of deduction - Remaining use solely for exempt transactions)

(2020/C 287/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HF

Defendant: Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 184, 185 and 187 of 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 a taxable person who has acquired the right to deduct, on a pro-rata basis, value added tax (VAT) related to the construction of a cafeteria, which is annexed to the retirement home operated by him as an activity exempt from VAT and which is intended to be used for both taxed and exempt transactions, is required to adjust the initial VAT deduction where he has ceased all taxed transactions in that cafeteria’s premises, if he has continued to carry out exempt transactions in those premises, thus using them henceforth only for those transactions.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — mk advokaten GbR v MBK Rechtsanwälte GbR

(Case C-684/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5(1) - Use in the course of trade of a sign that is identical with or similar to another person’s trade mark for goods or services that are identical with or similar to those for which that mark is registered - Scope of the term ‘using’ - Advertisement placed on a website by order of a person operating in the course of trade and subsequently reproduced on other websites)

(2020/C 279/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: mk advokaten GbR

Defendant: MBK Rechtsanwälte GbR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a person operating in the course of trade that has arranged for an advertisement which infringes another person’s trade mark to be placed on a website is not using a sign which is identical with that trade mark where the operators of other websites reproduce that advertisement by placing it online, on their own initiative and in their own name, on other websites.

(1) OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfly sp. z o.o. v Smartwings Poland sp. z o.o., formerly Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.

(Case C-356/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 7 - Right to compensation in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight - Compensation procedure - Claim expressed in national currency - National provision prohibiting the creditor from choosing the currency)

(2020/C 378/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delfly sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Smartwings Poland sp. z o.o., formerly Travel Service Polska sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, and in particular Article 7(1) thereof, is to be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights have been cancelled or subject to a long delay or their legal successors may demand payment of the amount of the compensation referred to in that provision in the national currency of their place of residence, so that that provision precludes a Member State’s legislation or case-law which results in the dismissal of an action brought for that purpose by such passengers or their legal successors on the sole ground that the claim was expressed in that national currency.

(1) OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finance Court Düsseldorf — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Köln

(Case C-97/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Code - Customs declarations - Article 78 of that code - Revision of the customs declaration - Name of the declarant - Amendment of information relating to the identity of the declarant seeking to show that there is a relationship of indirect representation - Indirect representation of the person who has obtained an import licence)

(2020/C 297/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln

Operative part of the judgment

Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities may grant an application for amendment of a customs declaration seeking to show that there is a relationship of indirect representation between, on the one hand, a person in possession of a power of attorney who has mistakenly indicated that it was acting exclusively in its own name and on its own behalf, even though it has received such a power from the person holding the import licence, and, on the other hand, the person who has granted the power of attorney and on whose behalf the declaration has been made.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
1.

Article 17(2)(a) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person is entitled to deduct input value added tax paid for the works for the extension of a municipal road carried out for the benefit of a municipality, where that road is used both by that taxable person in connection with its economic activity and by the public, in so far as those extension works did not exceed what was necessary to allow that taxable person to carry out its economic activity and the costs of those works are included in the price of the output transactions carried out by that taxable person.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — SC Romenergo SA, Aris Capital SA v Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară

(Case C-339/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Company law - Shares admitted to trading on the regulated market - Financial investment company - National regulations limiting the shareholding in certain financial investment companies - Statutory presumption of concerted action)

(2020/C 390/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SC Romenergo SA, Aris Capital SA

Defendant: Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national measure which provides for a 5 % limit on a shareholding in a financial investment company, if that measure is not justified by an overriding reason in the public interest, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
1.

Article 17(2)(a) of the 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 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that expenditure incurred by a taxable person, a property developer, in respect of advertising costs, administrative costs and estate agents’ commission, in connection with the sale of apartments, also benefits a third party, does not preclude that taxable person deducting in full the input value added tax paid on that expenditure where, firstly, there is a direct and immediate link between that expenditure and the taxable person’s economic activity and, secondly, the benefit to the third party is ancillary to the taxable person’s business purposes.
2.

Article 5(c) and Article 7(1)(a)(iii) of Directive 2006/54 must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the recipients of a pension that a State-controlled undertaking is contractually bound to pay them directly and that exceeds certain thresholds set in that legislation are deprived of (i) an amount withheld from the part of that pension exceeding one of those thresholds and (ii) the benefit of a contractually agreed indexation of that pension, even though the percentage of former workers the amount of whose occupational pension has been affected by that legislation is considerably higher among male former workers coming within the scope of that legislation than among female former workers coming within its scope, provided that those consequences are justified by objective factors wholly unrelated to any discrimination based on sex, which it is for the referring court to verify;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea — Romania) — SC Valoris SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Craiova — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Vâlcea, Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-677/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of EU law - Principle of sincere cooperation - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Recovery of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law - Time limit for lodging applications for reimbursement of such taxes - No similar time limit for the reimbursement of sums levied by that Member State in breach of national law)

(2020/C 423/19)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Vâlcea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Valoris SRL

Defendants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Craiova — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Vâlcea, Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of effectiveness, read in conjunction with the principle of sincere cooperation, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State from setting a time limit of approximately one year running from the entry into force of that legislation, which aims to remedy the infringement of EU law, in which applications for the reimbursement of taxes held to be incompatible with EU law must be lodged, failing which such applications will be time-barred.

The principle of equivalence, read in conjunction with the principle of sincere cooperation, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State from setting a time limit of approximately one year in which applications for reimbursement of taxes held to be incompatible with EU law must be lodged, failing which such applications will be time-barred, while no such time limit has been laid down by that Member State in respect of similar applications for reimbursement based on an infringement of national law.

(1) OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — Aktiebolaget Östgötatrafiken v Patent- och registreringsverket

(Case C-456/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 3(1)(b) - Signs of which a trade mark may consist - Distinctive character - Application for registration as a trade mark of a sign in respect of a service, consisting of motifs of colour and intended to be affixed to goods used to provide that service - Assessment of the distinctive character of that sign - Criteria)

(2020/C 414/10)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aktiebolaget Östgötatrafiken

Defendant: Patent- och registreringsverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the distinctive character of a sign for which registration as a trade mark in respect of a service is sought, which sign is composed of coloured motifs and which is intended to be affixed exclusively and systematically in a specific manner to a large part of the goods used for the provision of that service, must be assessed by taking into account the perception of the relevant public of the affixing of that sign to those goods, without it being necessary to examine whether that sign departs significantly from the norm or customs of the economic sector concerned.

(1) OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 — Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG, Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

(Case C-702/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Retail food packaging market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23 - Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Fundamental right to a fair trial - Principle of equality of arms - Right ‘to an examination in person’ - Hearing of witnesses - Statement of reasons - Single and continuous infringement - Upper limit of fine)

(2020/C 433/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wirtz and S. Möller, Rechtsanwälte), Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: C. Karbaum, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen, I. Zaloguin and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — E. sp. z o.o. sp. k. v Minister Finansów

(Case C-335/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90 - Reduction of the VAT taxable amount - Total or partial non-payment of the price - Conditions imposed by national legislation for the exercise of the right to reduction - Condition that the debtor must not be the subject of insolvency or winding-up proceedings - Condition that the creditor and the debtor must be subject to VAT)

(2020/C 423/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E. sp. z o.o. sp. k.

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Operative part of the judgment

Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the reduction of the taxable amount for the purposes value added tax (VAT) subject to the condition that, on the day of delivery of the goods or provision of the services and on the day preceding that on which the adjusted tax return seeking that reduction is filed, the debtor is registered as a taxable person for the purposes of VAT and is not the subject of insolvency or winding-up proceedings, and that, on the day preceding the date of filing of the adjusted tax return, the creditor is itself still registered as a taxable person for the purposes of VAT.

(1) OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Kaplan International Colleges UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-77/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(f) - Exemption of supplies of services made by independent groups of persons to their members - Applicability to VAT groups - Article 11 - VAT group)

(2021/C 28/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Kaplan International Colleges UK Ltd

Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption laid down in that provision is not applicable to supplies of services made by an independent group of persons to a group of persons that may be regarded as a single taxable person, within the meaning of Article 11 of that directive, where not all the members of that latter group are members of that independent group of persons. The existence of provisions of national law which require that the representative member of such a group of persons possess the characteristics and status of the members of the independent group of persons concerned, for the purposes of application of the exemption for independent groups of persons, has no bearing in that regard.

(1) OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
3.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to make to the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 7 500 per day as from the date of delivery of the present judgment and until the date of compliance with the judgment of 12 April 2018, Commission v Belgium (C-110/17, EU:C:2018:250);
1.

Declares that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, and Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, by failing to correctly transpose: — Article 9(1)(a) of both Directive 2009/72 and Directive 2009/73; — Article 37(4)(a) and (b) of Directive 2009/72 and Article 41(4)(a) and (b) of Directive 2009/73, and — Article 37(6)(a) to (c) and Article 37(9) of Directive 2009/72 and Article 41(6)(a) to (c) and Article 41(9) of Directive 2009/73.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others v Vlaamse Regering

(Case C-336/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of animals at the time of killing - Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 - Article 4(1) - Obligation to stun animals before they are killed - Article 4(4) - Derogation in the context of ritual slaughter - Article 26(2) - Power of Member States to adopt national rules aimed at ensuring more extensive protection of animals in the case of ritual slaughter - Interpretation - National legislation requiring, in the case of ritual slaughter, stunning which is reversible and cannot cause death - Article 13 TFEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 10 - Freedom of religion - Freedom to manifest religion - Limitation - Proportionality - Lack of consensus among the Member States of the European Union - Discretion afforded to Member States - Principle of subsidiarity - Validity - Differing treatment of ritual slaughter and the killing of animals during hunting or recreational fishing activities and cultural or sporting events - No discrimination - Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2021/C 53/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others, Unie Moskeeën Antwerpen VZW, Islamitisch Offerfeest Antwerpen VZW, JG, KH, Executief van de Moslims van België and Others, Coördinatie Comité van Joodse Organisaties van België — Section belge du Congrès juif mondial et Congrès juif européen VZW and Others

Defendant: Vlaamse Regering

Intervening parties: LI, Waalse Regering, Kosher Poultry BVBA and Others, Global Action in the Interest of Animals VZW (GAIA)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 26(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, read in the light of Article 13 TFEU and Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which requires, in the context of ritual slaughter, a reversible stunning procedure which cannot result in the animal’s death.

2. The examination of the third question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 26(2) of Regulation No 1099/2009.

(1) OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.