ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Should Article 10(2)(f) and (g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66) in view of the principle of EU law effectiveness and the purpose of this directive, and in the light of Article 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) be interpreted in such a way that they oppose the practice of including in consumer credit contracts the content of which is not the result of individual arrangements between the supplier (lender) and consumer (borrower) provisions disclosing only the borrowing rate and total value of capitalised interest expressed in amounts that the consumer is required to pay in the performance of their obligation arising under this contract, without at the same time clearly informing the consumer that the basis for calculating the capitalised interest (expressed as an amount) is an amount other than the credit amount actually disbursed to the consumer, and in particular, that it is the sum of the credit amount disbursed to the consumer and non-interest credit costs (that is to say, commissions or other fees that are not components of the credit amount disbursed to the consumer, and that make up the total amount to be paid by the consumer in performance of their obligation under the consumer credit contract)?
1.

Must Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that unit-holders in a pension fund such as the one at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as bearing investment risk, and does this mean that the pension fund constitutes a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of that provision? Is it relevant in that regard: — whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results? — what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is? — to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate? — that the pension fund has no active accrual from 1 January 2018 and is obliged to proceed with a collective value transfer to an insurer or another pension fund because of the low policy coverage ratio?
1.

Must the legal rule that default interest must be reimbursed because there is a right to a refund of taxes levied in breach of EU law be interpreted as meaning that, where a taxable person has been granted a refund of turnover tax, default interest must be reimbursed to that taxable person in a situation where: a. the refund is the result of administrative errors on the part of the taxable person, as described in this ruling, and for which the inspector cannot be blamed in any way; b. the refund is the result of a recalculation of the allocation key for the deduction of turnover tax on general costs, under the circumstances described in this ruling?
Appeal brought on 9 May 2022 by Ahmad Aziz against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2022 in Case T-789/21, Aziz v EEAS

(Case C-315/22 P)

(2023/C 45/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ahmad Aziz (represented by: L. Cuschieri, avukat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service

By order of 19 December 2022, The Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Mr Ahmad Aziz shall bear his own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany)) — Columbus Container Services BVBA & Co. v Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt

(Case C-298/05) (1)

(Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Taxes on revenue and wealth - Conditions for taxing the profits of an establishment situated in another Member State - Double taxation convention - Methods of exempting or offsetting tax)

(2008/C 22/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Columbus Container Services BVBA & Co.

Defendant: Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Münster — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 56 EC, 57 EC and 58 EC — Freedom of establishment and free movement of capital — Controlled-foreign-corporation income which is the designated passive income of a foreign permanent establishment of a party with unlimited liability to tax in Germany — National legislation offsetting the foreign tax on that income against national tax, contrary to the provisions of the double taxation convention with Belgium, which provides for use of the method of exemption from taxation

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC and 56 EC must be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a Member State under which the income of a resident national derived from capital invested in an establishment which has its registered office in another Member State is, notwithstanding the existence of a double taxation convention concluded with the Member State in which the establishment has its registered office, not exempted from national income tax but is subject to national taxation against which the tax levied in the other Member State is set off.

(1) OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.
1.

Declares that, by adopting a procedure, which has been in existence for a long time and is still followed, of directly awarding to Agusta SpA contracts for the purchase of Agusta and Agusta Bell helicopters to meet the requirements of several military and civilian corps, without any competitive tendering procedure, and, in particular, without complying with the procedures provided for by Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, and previously, by Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended and supplemented by Council Directives 80/767/EEC of 22 July 1980 and 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden)) — Skatteverket v A

(Case C-101/05) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Restriction on the movement of capital between the Member States and third countries - Tax on revenue from capital - Dividends received from a company established in an EEA Member State - Exemption - Dividends received from a company established in a third country - Exemption subject to the existence of a taxation convention providing for the exchange of information - Effectiveness of fiscal supervision)

(2008/C 51/09)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Regeringsrätten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: A

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regeringsrätten — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Taxation, in the case of a taxable person resident in a Member State, in respect of dividends distributed by a company established in a non-member State — National legislation making the exemption of such dividends conditional upon the existence of a taxation convention with the non-member State that contains a provision on exchange of information

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 56 EC and 58 EC are to be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State which provides that exemption from income tax in respect of dividends distributed in the form of shares in a subsidiary may be granted only if the company making the distribution is established in a State within the EEA or a State with which a taxation convention providing for the exchange of information has been concluded by the Member State imposing the tax, where that exemption is subject to conditions compliance with which can be verified by the competent authorities of that Member State only by obtaining information from the State of establishment of the distributing company.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-372/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Duty-free imports of military equipment)

2010/C 51/04

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga, G. Wilms, D. Triantafyllou and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, Agent, C. von Donat, Rechtsanwalt)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Bering Liisberg, Agent), Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, A. Samoni-Rantou and K. Boskovits, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and, for the period after 31 May 2000, of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Duty-free imports of military equipment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by refusing to calculate, declare and make available to the European Commission the own resources relating to imports of military material during the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2002 and by refusing to pay default interest payable due to the failure to make those own resources available to the European Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 and Articles 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, and the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources;

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

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-119/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Infringement of Directive 92/50/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts - Award of a contract without a call for tenders - Award of the contract for healthcare transport services in Tuscany)

(2008/C 22/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and D. Recchia, acting as Agents, and M. Mollina, avocat)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, and G. Fiengo and S, Varone, avocats)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 11, 15 and 17 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — Award of a contract without publication of the appropriate notice — Award of the contract for healthcare transport services in Tuscany

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 131 of 3.6.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — International Mail Spain SL v Administración del Estado, Correos

(Case C-162/06) (1)

(Directive 97/67/EC - Common rules for the development of the internal market in postal services - Liberalisation of postal services - Possibility to reserve cross-border post to the universal postal service provider ‘to the extent necessary to ensure the maintenance of universal service’)

(2008/C 8/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo (Spain)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: International Mail Spain SL

Respondents: Administración del Estado, Correos

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 7(2) 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, prior to its amendment by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14) — Postal services reserved to universal service providers — Cross-border mail — Assessment criteria — Account taken solely of the effect on the financial equilibrium of the universal service provider

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) 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 must be interpreted as allowing Member States to reserve cross-border mail to the universal postal service provider only in so far as they establish

— that, in the absence of such a reservation, achievement of that universal service would be precluded, or

— that that reservation is necessary to enable that service to be carried out under economically acceptable conditions.

(1) OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/13

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — Skoma-Lux sro v Celní ředitelství Olomouc

(Case C-161/06) (1)

(Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union - Article 58 - Community legislation - No translation into the language of a Member State - Enforceability)

(2008/C 51/21)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skoma-Lux sro

Defendant: Celní ředitelství Olomouc

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) — Interpretation of Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33) — Imposition of a fine on a Czech importing undertaking for making a customs declaration containing incorrect information, pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 which had not yet been published in Czech in the Official Journal of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, precludes the obligations contained in Community legislation which has not been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of a new Member State, where that language is an official language of the European Union, from being imposed on individuals in that State, even though those persons could have learned of that legislation by other means.

2. In holding that a Community regulation which is not published in the language of a Member State is unenforceable against individuals in that State, the Court is interpreting Community law for the purposes of Article 234 EC.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-401/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Supply of services - Executor of a will - Place where the service is performed - Article 9(1) and (2)(e))

(2008/C 22/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 9(2)(e) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Services supplied by executors for customers established outside the Community or for taxable persons established in the Community but not in the same country as the supplier — Place of supply of services — Characterisation of activities of executors

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay, in addition to its own costs, those of the Federal Republic of Germany.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Theodor Jäger v Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl

(Case C-256/06) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC) - Inheritance tax - Valuation of assets forming part of the estate - Agricultural and forestry assets in another Member State - Less favourable method of valuation of assets and calculation of the tax payable)

(2008/C 64/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Theodor Jäger

Defendant: Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 56 of the EC Treaty — National inheritance tax legislation — Application of different methods for assessing the value of agricultural land and forestry depending on whether they are on the national territory or in another Member State and a deduction in respect of the acquisition of land on the national territory, resulting in a fiscal charge that is heavier where the assets include agricultural land and forestry in another Member State than where all the assets are on the national territory

Operative part of the judgment

Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC), read in conjunction with Article 73d of the EC Treaty (now Article 58 EC), must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, for the purposes of calculating the tax on an inheritance consisting of assets situated in that State and agricultural land and forestry situated in another Member State,

— provides that account be taken of the fair market value of the assets in that other Member State, whereas a special valuation procedure exists for identical domestic assets, the results of which amount on average to only 10 % of that fair market value, and

— reserves application of a tax-free amount to domestic agricultural land and forestry in relation to those assets and takes account of their remaining value in the amount of only 60 % thereof.

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/25

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-528/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/98/EC - Re-use of public sector information - Failure to transpose into national law within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 51/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-201/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Plant protection products - Parallel imports - Marketing authorisation procedure - Conditions - Common origin of a plant protection product imported in parallel and the reference product)

(2008/C 92/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agent)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by H.G. Sevenster, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 28 EC — Requirement that a plant protection product imported in parallel and a reference product have a common origin

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.
1.

Declares that, by not taking, within the prescribed period, all measures necessary to put an end to aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by the Commission Decision of 14 December 2005 concerning State aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines, and to recover that aid from the recipients, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision.
3.

All contracts awarded by an entity which is a body governed by public law, within the meaning of Directive 2004/17 or Directive 2004/18, which relate to activities carried out by that entity in one or more of the sectors listed in Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2004/17 must be subject to the procedures laid down in that directive. However, all other contracts awarded by such an entity in connection with the exercise of other activities are covered by the procedures laid down in Directive 2004/18. Each of these two directives applies without distinction between the activities carried out by that entity to accomplish its task of meeting needs in the general interest and activities which it carries out under competitive conditions, and even where there is an accounting system intended to make a clear internal separation between those activities in order to avoid cross financing between those sectors.