ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt A v B

(Case C-388/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Point 1 of the first sentence of Article 288 and Article 315 - Special scheme for small undertakings - Special arrangements for taxable dealers - Taxable dealer falling under the margin scheme - Annual turnover determining whether the special scheme for small undertakings is applicable - Margin or amounts received)

(2019/C 319/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Finanzamt A

Respondent: B

Operative part of the judgment

Point 1 of the first sentence of Article 288 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 or a national administrative practice under which the turnover used as a reference to determine whether the special scheme for small undertakings is applicable to a taxable person falling under the special margin scheme envisaged for taxable dealers is calculated, in accordance with Article 315 of that directive, using only the profit margin made. That turnover must be established on the basis of all amounts, exclusive of value added tax, received or to be received by that taxable dealer, regardless of how those amounts will actually be taxed.

(1) OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.
1.

The second sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation laid down in that provision to take into account, for the purposes of determining the scope of a person’s entitlement to family benefits, ‘the whole family … as if all the persons involved were subject to the legislation of the Member State concerned’ applies both in the case where benefits are provided in accordance with the legislation designated as having priority under Article 68(1)(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and in the case where benefits are payable in accordance with one or more other laws.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against AH, PB, CX, KM, PH

(Case C-377/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Article 4(1) - Presumption of innocence - Public references to guilt - Agreement concluded between the prosecutor and the perpetrator of an offence - National case-law providing for the identification of accused persons who have not concluded such an agreement - Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 48)

(2019/C 383/29)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the criminal proceedings against

AH, PB, CX, KM, PH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude that an agreement in which the accused person recognises his guilt in exchange for a reduction in sentencing, which must be approved by a national court, expressly mentions as joint perpetrators of the criminal offence in question not only that person but also other accused persons, who have not recognised their guilt and are being prosecuted in separate criminal proceedings, on the condition that that reference is necessary for the categorisation of the legal liability of the person who entered into the agreement and, second, that that same agreement makes it clear that those other persons are being prosecuted in separate criminal proceedings and that their guilt has not been legally established.

(1) OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Delta Antrepriză de Construcții și Montaj 93 SA v Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA

(Case C-267/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public Procurement - Public procurement procedure - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 57(4) - Optional grounds for exclusion - Exclusion of an economic operator from participating in a public procurement procedure - Early termination of a prior contract on account of partial subcontracting - Concept of ‘significant or persistent deficiencies’ - Scope)

(2019/C 413/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delta Antrepriză de Construcții și Montaj 93 SA

Defendant: Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 57(4)(g) 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 meaning that the subcontracting, by an economic operator, of part of the works under a prior public contract, decided upon without the contracting authority’s authorisation and which led to the early termination of that contract, constitutes a significant or persistent deficiency shown in the performance of a substantive requirement under that public contract, within the meaning of that provision, and is therefore capable of justifying that economic operator being excluded from participation in a subsequent public procurement procedure if, after conducting its own evaluation of the integrity and reliability of the economic operator concerned by the early termination of the prior public contract, the contracting authority which organises that subsequent procurement procedure considers that such subcontracting entails breaking the relationship of trust with the economic operator in question. Before deciding such an exclusion, the contracting authority must however, in accordance with Article 57(6) of that directive, read in conjunction with recital 102 thereof, allow that economic operator the opportunity to set out the corrective measures adopted by it further to the early termination of the prior public contract.

(1) OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Trace Sport v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

(Case C-251/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Anti-dumping duties - Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia - Extension to those countries of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 - Validity - Admissibility - No action for annulment brought by the applicant in the main proceedings - Associated importer - Standing to bring an action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 13 - Circumvention - Article 18 - Non-cooperation - Proof - Body of evidence)

(2019/C 399/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trace Sport

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

Operative part of the judgment

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, is invalid in so far as it applies to imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in that country or not.

(1) OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof - Germany) – Michael Winterhoff, acting as liquidator of DIREKTexpress Holding AG v Finanzamt Ulm (C-4/18) and Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator of JUREX GmbH v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (C-5/18)

(Joined Cases C-4/18 and C-5/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(a) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Public postal services - Directive 97/67/EC - Universal postal service provider - Private operator providing the service of formally serving court or administrative authority documents)

(2019/C 423/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Michael Winterhoff, acting as liquidator of DIREKTexpress Holding AG (C-4/18) and Jochen Eisenbeis, acting as liquidator of JUREX GmbH (C-5/18)

Defendants: Finanzamt Ulm (C-4/18), Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (C-5/18)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(13) and Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 must be interpreted as meaning that providers of services consisting in the service of items of correspondence, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, who, in their capacity as holders of a national licence permitting them to supply that service are required to effect, in accordance with provisions of national law, the formal service of court or administrative authority documents, must be regarded as ‘universal service providers’, in accordance with those provisions, so that those services must be exempt from value added tax as services effected by the ‘public postal services’ under Article 132 (1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

(1) OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v A, B, P

(Case C-70/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 2/76 - Article 7 - Decision No 1/80 - Article 13 - ‘Standstill’ clauses - New restriction - Collection, registration and retention of biometric data of Turkish nationals in a central filing system - Overriding reasons of public interest - Objective of preventing and combating identity and document fraud - Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to respect for private life - Right to the protection of personal data - Proportionality)

(2019/C 413/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Other parties: A, B, P

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 must be interpreted as meaning that a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the issuance of a temporary residence permit to third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals, conditional upon the collection, recording and retention of their biometric data in a central filing system does constitute a ‘new restriction’ within the meaning of that provision. Such a restriction is, however, justified by the objective of preventing and combating identity and document fraud.

(1) OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
3.

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the tax on the use of inland waters for the production of electricity, at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, is not payable, first, by hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing a single autonomous community and, secondly, by producers of electricity from sources other than water, does not constitute State aid, within the meaning of that provision, in favour of those producers provided that the latter are not, in the light of the relevant reference framework and the objective pursued by that tax, in a comparable situation to that of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community subject to that tax, which it is for the national court to determine.
1.

Article 7(1), Article 67 and Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and Article 33 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Member State hearing an action to obtain both compliance with the flat-rate and standardised rights provided for in 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 compensation for further damage falling within the scope of that convention, must assess its jurisdiction, for the first head of claim, in the light of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, and, for the second head of claim, in the light of Article 33 of that convention;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Procureur-Generaal bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

(Case C-678/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 90(1) - Provisional and protective measures - Jurisdiction of national courts of first instance - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts designated in that provision)

(2020/C 27/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Procureur-Generaal bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Operative part of the judgment

Article 90(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the courts and tribunals of the Member States with jurisdiction to order provisional measures, including protective measures, in respect of a national design also have jurisdiction to order such measures in respect of a Community design.

(1) OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
1.

The principle of non-discrimination, as provided for in Article 3(1) of 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 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation establishing taxes on the production and storage of nuclear fuel and waste, such as those taxes at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, which apply only to electricity-generating undertakings using nuclear energy and the main objective of which is not to protect the environment but to increase the amount of revenue for the electricity financial system;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Gerona — Spain) — WA v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

(Case C-450/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 79/7/EEC - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Article 4(1) and (2) - Article 7(1) - Calculation of benefits - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - National legislation granting a right to a pension supplement for women who have had at least two biological or adopted children, and who are in receipt of a contributory permanent incapacity pension - Same right not granted to men in an identical situation - Comparable situation - Direct discrimination on grounds of sex - No exceptions)

(2020/C 54/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Gerona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WA

Defendant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes provision for the right to a pension supplement for women who have had at least two biological or adopted children and who are in receipt of contributory permanent incapacity pensions under a scheme within the national social security system, while men in an identical situation do not have a right to such a pension supplement.

(1) OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur — Belgium) — Ordre des avocats du barreau de Dinant v JN

(Case C-421/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Article 7(1)(a) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ - Claim for payment of annual fees payable by a lawyer to a bar association)

(2020/C 36/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Dinant

Defendant: JN

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning a lawyer’s obligation to pay annual professional fees for which he or she is liable to the bar association to which he or she belongs comes within the scope of that regulation only if, in calling on that lawyer to perform that obligation, the bar association is not acting, under the national law applicable, in the exercise of public powers, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that an action by which a bar association seeks an order that one of its members pay the annual professional fees for which he or she is liable and which are essentially intended to finance services, such as insurance services, must be regarded as constituting an action in ‘matters relating to a contract’, within the meaning of that provision, provided that those fees constitute consideration for services provided by that bar association to its members and those services are freely consented to by the member concerned, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Nederlands Uitgeversverbond, Groep Algemene Uitgevers v Tom Kabinet Internet BV, Tom Kabinet Holding BV, Tom Kabinet Uitgeverij BV

(Case C-263/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Right of communication to the public - Making available - Article 4 - Distribution right - Exhaustion - Electronic books (e-books) - Virtual market for ‘second-hand’ e-books)

(2020/C 61/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nederlands Uitgeversverbond, Groep Algemene Uitgevers

Defendants: Tom Kabinet Internet BV, Tom Kabinet Holding BV, Tom Kabinet Uitgeverij BV

Operative part of the judgment

The supply to the public by downloading, for permanent use, of an e-book is covered by the concept of ‘communication to the public’ and, more specifically, by that of ‘making available to the public of [authors’] works in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

(1) OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Segler-Vereinigung Cuxhaven eV v Finanzamt Cuxhaven

(Case C-715/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98 - Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services - Point 12 of Annex III - Reduced rate of VAT applicable to the letting of places on camping or caravan sites - Question of whether that reduced rate is applicable to the letting of boat moorings in a marina - Comparison with the letting of premises and sites for the parking of vehicles - Equal treatment - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

(2020/C 61/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Segler-Vereinigung Cuxhaven eV

Respondent: Finanzamt Cuxhaven

Operative part of the judgment

Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with point 12 of Annex III thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that the reduced rate of value added tax, envisaged in that provision, for the letting of places on camping or caravan sites is not applicable to the letting of boat moorings.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.