ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — Online Games Handels GmbH and Others v Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich

(Case C-685/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Games of chance - Restrictive legislation of a Member State - Penal administrative sanctions - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - National legislation laying down the requirement for the court to examine of its own motion the facts of the case before it in the context of the prosecution of administrative offences - Compliance))

(2017/C 277/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Online Games Handels GmbH, Frank Breuer, Nicole Enter, Astrid Walden

Defendant: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, as interpreted in particular in the judgment of 30 April 2014, Pfleger and Others (C-390/12, EU:C:2014:281), read in light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a national procedural system according to which, in administrative offence proceedings, the court called upon to rule on the compliance with EU law of legislation restricting the exercise of a fundamental freedom of the European Union, such as the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services within the European Union, is required to examine of its own motion the facts of the case before it in the context of examining whether administrative offences arise, provided that such a system does not have the consequence that that court is required to substitute itself for the competent authorities of the Member State concerned, whose task it is to provide the evidence necessary to enable that court to determine whether that restriction is justified.

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.
1.

The concept of ‘debt-claims with participation in profits’ referred to in Article 11(2) of the Abkommen zwischen der Republik Österreich und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zur Vermeidung der Doppelbesteuerung auf dem Gebiet der Steuern vom Einkommen und vom Vermögen (Convention between the Republic of Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and capital) of 24 August 2000 must be interpreted as excluding certificates such as those at issue in the present case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/11

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-646/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Trust - Trustees - Other legal persons - Meaning - Tax on gains in value of assets held in trust by reason of the trustees’ place of residence for tax purposes being transferred to another Member State - Determination of the amount of tax due at the time of that transfer - Tax payable immediately - Justification - Proportionality))

(2017/C 382/12)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trustees of the P Panayi Accumulation & Maintenance Settlements

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the FEU Treaty relating to freedom of establishment preclude, in circumstances, such as those in the main proceedings, where the trustees, under national law, are treated as a single and continuing body of persons, distinct from the persons who may from time to time be the trustees, legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the taxation of unrealised gains in value of assets held in trust when the majority of the trustees transfer their residence to another Member State, but fails to permit payment of the tax payable to be deferred.

(1) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany)) — CTL Logistics GmbH v DB Netz AG

(Case C-489/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rail transport - Directive 2001/14/EC - Infrastructure charges - Pricing - National regulatory body monitoring the conformity of those infrastructure charges with that directive - Contract for use of infrastructure concluded between a railway infrastructure manager and a railway undertaking - Principle of non-discrimination - Reimbursement of the charges without intervention by that body and outside the claims procedures involving it - National legislation enabling the civil courts to set a fair amount in the case of unfair charges))

(2018/C 005/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CTL Logistics GmbH

Defendant: DB Netz AG

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, in particular Article 4(5) and Article 30(1), (3), (5) and (6) of that directive, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a review of the equity of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, on a case-by-case basis, by the ordinary courts and the possibility, if necessary, of amending the amount of those charges, independently of the monitoring carried out by the regulatory body provided for in Article 30 of Directive 2001/14, as amended by Directive 2004/49.

(1) OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
Case C-661/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Community Customs Code — Article 29 — Import of vehicles — Determination of the customs value — Article 78 — Revision of the declaration — Article 236(2) — Repayment of import duties — Period of three years — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 145(2) and (3) — Risk of defects — Period of 12 months — Validity)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-661/15) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Community Customs Code — Article 29 — Import of vehicles — Determination of the customs value — Article 78 — Revision of the declaration — Article 236(2) — Repayment of import duties — Period of three years — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 145(2) and (3) — Risk of defects — Period of 12 months — Validity)’

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 145(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 444/2002 of 11 March 2002, read in conjunction with Article 29(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies in a case, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where it is established that, at the time of acceptance of the declaration for entry to free circulation for specific goods, there was a manufacture-related risk that the goods might become defective in use, and in view of this the seller, pursuant to a contractual warranty towards the buyer, grants the latter a price reduction in the form of reimbursement of the costs incurred by the buyer in modifying the goods in order to exclude that risk.

2. Article 145(3) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 444/2002, in so far as it provides for a time limit of 12 months from acceptance of the declaration for entry to free circulation of the goods, within which an adjustment of the price actually paid or payable must be made, is invalid.

( 1 ) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
1.

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation in accordance with which criminal proceedings may be brought against a person for failing to pay value added tax due within the time limits stipulated by law, although that person has already been made subject, in relation to the same acts, to a final administrative penalty of criminal nature for the purposes of Article 50 of the Charter, on condition that that legislation — pursues an objective of general interest which is such as to justify such a duplication of proceedings and penalties, namely combating value added tax offences, it being necessary for those proceedings and penalties to pursue additional objectives, — contains rules ensuring coordination which limits to what is strictly necessary the additional disadvantage which results, for the persons concerned, from a duplication of proceedings, and — provides for rules making it possible to ensure that the severity of all of the penalties imposed is limited to what is strictly necessary in relation to the seriousness of the offence concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/3

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Jerez de la Frontera) — Banco Santander SA v Cristobalina Sánchez López

(Case C-598/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumer contracts - Unfair terms - Powers of the national court - Effectiveness of the protection afforded to consumers - Mortgage loan agreement - Extrajudicial enforcement procedure - Simplified declaratory court procedure for recognition of the real rights of the successful bidder))

(2018/C 052/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Jerez de la Frontera

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco Santander SA

Defendant: Cristobalina Sánchez López

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer do not apply to proceedings such as those at issue in the main proceedings, brought by the successful bidder in an auction of immovable property, following extrajudicial enforcement of a mortgage granted over that property by a consumer to a creditor acting in the course of trade, such proceedings having been brought for the purpose of protecting real rights lawfully acquired by the successful bidder, provided that, first, the proceedings are independent of the legal relationship between that creditor and the consumer and, second, the mortgage has been enforced, the immovable property sold, the real rights over that property transferred, and the consumer has not availed himself of the legal remedies provided in that context

(1) OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie Wydział Cywilny — Poland) — J. D. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

(Case C-4/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2009/28/EC - The second subparagraph of Article 2(a) - Energy from renewable sources - Hydropower - Meaning - Energy produced in a small-scale hydropower plant located at the point of discharge of industrial waste water from another plant))

(2017/C 121/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie Wydział Cywilny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J. D.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘energy from renewable sources’, in the second subparagraph of Article 2(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, must be interpreted as covering energy generated by a small-scale hydropower plant, which is not a pumped-storage power station or a hydropower plant with a pumping installation, located at the point of discharge of industrial waste water from another plant which previously used the water for its own purposes.

(1) OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/17

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Halil Ibrahim Özçelik

(Case C-453/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 8(1)(c) - Concept of ‘arrest warrant’ - Autonomous concept of EU law - National arrest warrant issued by a police service and confirmed by a public prosecutor for the purpose of criminal proceedings))

(2017/C 014/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party to the main proceedings

Halil Ibrahim Özçelik

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1)(c) of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a confirmation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by the public prosecutor’s office, of a national arrest warrant issued previously by a police service in connection with criminal proceedings constitutes a ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
2.

Article 148(d) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, not only supplies of services concerning loading or unloading cargo onto or from a vessel covered by Article 148(a) of that directive which take place at the end of the commercial chain of such a service may be exempt, but also supplies of services made at an earlier stage, such as services supplied by a subcontractor to an economic operator which then re-invoices them to a freight forwarder or transporter and, second, services for loading and unloading of cargo supplied to the holders of that cargo, such as the exporter or importer may also be exempt.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/10

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Lucio Cesare Aquino v Belgische Staat

(Case C-3/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU law - Rights conferred on individuals - Infringement by a court - Questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Reference to the Court - National court of last instance))

(2017/C 151/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lucio Cesare Aquino

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

1. The third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a court against whose decisions there is a judicial remedy under national law may not be regarded as a court adjudicating at last instance, where an appeal on a point of law against a decision of that court is not examined because of discontinuance by the appellant.

2. There is no need to answer Question 2.

3. The third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a court adjudicating at last instance may decline to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling where an appeal on a point of law is dismissed on grounds of inadmissibility specific to the procedure before that court, subject to compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2017 — Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) v European Commission

(Case C-228/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Decision to take no further action - Refusal by the European Commission to continue to examine the applicant’s complaint - Lack of aid at the end of the preliminary examination stage - Purely confirmatory decision - Legal conditions for the withdrawal of a decision to take no further action))

(2017/C 249/12)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, avocat, A. Oikonomou, E. Salaka, C. Synodinos and C. Tagaras, dikigoroi, and by D. Waelbroeck, avocat,)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 9 February 2016, DEI v Commission (T-639/14, not published, EU:T:2016:77);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Posnania Investment SA

(Case C-36/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(a) - Article 14(1) - Taxable transactions - Meaning of ‘supply of goods for consideration’ - Transfer to the State or to a local authority of immovable property in order to settle a tax debt - Not included))

(2017/C 239/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Posnania Investment SA

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the transfer of ownership of immovable property by a person subject to value added tax, for the benefit of the State Treasury or a local authority of a Member State, occurring, as in the main proceedings, in payment of tax arrears, does not constitute a supply of goods for consideration that is subject to value added tax.

(1) OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Madrid — Spain) — Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania v Ayuntamiento de Getafe

(Case C-74/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Meaning of ‘State aid’ - Meaning of ‘undertaking’ and ‘economic activity’ - Other conditions for the application of Article 107(1) TFEU - Article 108(1) and (3) TFEU - Meaning of ‘new aid’ and ‘existing aid’ - Agreement of 3 January 1979 between the Kingdom of Spain and the Holy See - Tax on construction, installations and works - Exemption for buildings belonging to the Catholic Church))

(2017/C 283/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Getafe

Operative part of the judgment

A tax exemption such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to which a congregation belonging to the Catholic Church is entitled in respect of works on a building intended to be used for activities that do not have a strictly religious purpose, may fall under the prohibition in Article 107(1) TFEU if, and to the extent to which, those activities are economic, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
4.

Article 138(2)(a) of Directive 2006/112 as well as the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations preclude the vendor of a new means of transport, transported by the purchaser to another Member State and registered on a temporary basis in that State, from being required to pay value added tax at a later stage in the event of tax evasion by the purchaser, unless it has been established, in the light of objective evidence, that that vendor knew or ought to have known that the transaction was part of a fraud committed by the purchaser and he did not take all reasonable steps within his power to avoid his participation in that fraud. It is for the referring court to verify whether this is the case on the basis of an overall assessment of all the evidence and circumstances of the case in the main proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/6

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Gelvora’ v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba

(Case C-357/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair commercial practices - Directive 2005/29/EC - Scope - Debt collection agency - Consumer credit - Assignment of debt - Nature of the legal relationship between the agency and the debtor - Article 2(c) - Concept of ‘product’ - Recovery measures taken in parallel to the intervention of a bailiff))

(2017/C 300/08)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘Gelvora’

Defendant: Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that the legal relationship between a debt collection agency and the debtor, who has defaulted under a consumer credit agreement and whose debt has been assigned to that agency, falls within the material scope of the directive. The practices in which that agency engages in order to recover that debt fall within the concept of ‘product’ within the meaning of Article 2(c) of that directive. In that regard, the fact that the existence of the debt was confirmed by a court decision, and that that decision was passed to a bailiff for enforcement, is without consequence.

(1) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.