ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Trade between Member States is capable of being affected by the level of rates set by a copyright management organisation that holds a monopoly and also manages the rights of foreign copyright holders, with the result that Article 102 TFEU may be applicable.

For the purposes of examining whether a copyright management organisation applies unfair prices within the meaning of point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU, it is appropriate to compare its rates with those applicable in neighbouring Member States as well as with those applicable in other Member States adjusted in accordance with the PPP index, provided that the reference Member States have been selected in accordance with objective, appropriate and verifiable criteria and that the comparisons are made on a consistent basis. It is permissible to compare the rates charged in one or several specific user segments if there are indications that the excessive nature of the fees affects those segments.

The difference between the rates compared must be regarded as appreciable if that difference is significant and persistent. Such a difference is indicative of abuse of a dominant position and it is for the copyright management organisation holding a dominant position to show that its prices are fair by reference to objective factors that have an impact on management expenses or the remuneration of rightholders.

In the case where the infringement referred to in point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU is established, remuneration intended for rightholders must be included, for the purpose of determining the amount of the fine, in the turnover of the copyright management organisation concerned, provided that that remuneration forms part of the value of the services provided by that organisation and that that inclusion is necessary in order to ensure that the penalty imposed is effective, proportionate and dissuasive. It is for the referring court to verify, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, whether those conditions are met.

(see operative part 2-4)
Case C‑519/16

Superfoz — Supermercados Lda

v

Fazenda Pública

(Request for a preliminary ruling

from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 — Official controls of feed and food — Funding of official controls — Articles 26 and 27 — General taxation — Fees or charges — Charge on retail food outlets)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 26 July 2017

Approximation of laws — Official controls of feed and food — Financing — Fees payable in relation to official controls — Charge on retail food outlets — Revenue from that charge not used specifically to fund official controls that have been caused by, or that are for the benefit of, the chargeable persons — Lawfulness

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 882/2004, Arts 26 and 27)

Articles 26 and 27 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014, must be interpreted as not precluding the imposition of a charge, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on retail food outlets only, where the revenue from that charge is not used specifically to finance official controls that have been caused by, or that are for the benefit of, those chargeable persons.

(see para. 43, operative part)
Article 17(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot apply to paid work, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in caring for children in a family-like environment, relieving the person principally responsible for that task, where it is not established that the working time as a whole is not measured or predetermined or it may be determined by the worker himself, which is for the national court to ascertain.

(see para. 49, operative part)
Case C‑462/16

Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey

v

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90(1) — Reduction of the price under conditions determined by the Member States — Reduction of the taxable amount — Principles laid down in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C‑317/94, EU:C:1996:400) — Discounts granted to private medical insurance funds)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 20 December 2017

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Taxable amount — Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 — Reduction in the case of cancellation, refusal or where the price is reduced — Supplies of pharmaceutical products via wholesalers — Discounted price granted by the pharmaceutical company to private health insurance fund — No contractual link between the pharmaceutical company and the insured — Application of the principles laid down by the Court in Elida Gibbs and the principle of equal treatment — Reduction of the taxable amount in favour of the pharmaceutical company

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 90(1))

In the light of the principles defined by the Court in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C‑317/94, EU:C:1996:400, paragraphs 28 and 31), regarding the determination of the taxable amount for value added tax and having regard to the principle of equal treatment under EU law, Article 90(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 discount granted, under national law, by a pharmaceutical company to a private health insurance company results, for the purposes of that article, in a reduction of the taxable amount in favour of that pharmaceutical company, where it supplies medicinal products via wholesalers to pharmacies which make supplies to persons covered by private health insurance that reimburses the purchase price of the medicinal products to persons it insures.

(see para. 46, operative part)
Case C‑529/16

Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH

v

Hauptzollamt München

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Customs Code — Article 29 — Determination of the customs value — Cross-border transactions between related companies — Advance transfer pricing arrangement — Agreed transfer price composed of an amount initially invoiced and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 20 December 2017

Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Value for customs purposes — Transaction value — Determination — Agreed transaction value, composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment — Precluded

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 28 to 31)

Articles 28 to 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not permit an agreed transaction value, composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, to form the basis for the customs value, without it being possible to know at the end of the accounting period whether that adjustment would be made up or down.

(seeparas 35, operative part)
Case C‑463/16

Stadion Amsterdam CV

v

Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 77/388/EEC — Third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) — Reduced rate of VAT — Annex H, category 7 — Single supply comprised of two distinct elements — Selective application of a reduced rate of VAT to one of those elements — ‘World of Ajax’ tour — Visit to the AFC Ajax museum)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 18 January 2018

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Discretionary power of the Member States to apply a reduced rate to certain supplies of goods and services — Single supply comprised of two distinct elements, one principal, the other ancillary — Elements capable of being subject to different rates if supplied separately — Obligation to apply a single rate determined according to the principal element — Possibility of identifying the price corresponding to each distinct element — Irrelevant

(Council Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2001/4, Art. 12(3)(a))

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 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a single supply, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, comprised of two distinct elements, one principal, the other ancillary, which, if they were supplied separately, would be subject to different rates of value added tax, must be taxed solely at the rate of value added tax applicable to that single supply, that rate being determined according to the principal element, even if the price of each element forming the full price paid by a consumer in order to be able to receive that supply can be identified.

(see para. 36, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 —

Commission v Germany

(Case C‑380/16) ( 1 )

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 73 — Taxable amount — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Exclusion from that scheme of sales to taxable undertakings — Overall determination of the taxable amount for a given period — Incompatibility)

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation—Common system of value added tax—Special scheme for travel agencies—Taxable amount—National legislation providing for the exclusion from that scheme of sales to taxable undertakings—National legislation which authorises travel agents subject to that scheme to make an overall determination of the taxable amount for a given period—Failure to fulfil obligations

(Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 73 and 306-310)

(see para 95, operative part)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by excluding from the special value-added-tax scheme applicable to travel agents travel services provided to taxable persons who use those services for their business, and by authorising travel agents, in so far as they are subject to that scheme, to determine the taxable amount for value added tax on an overall basis for groups of services or for all services provided during a tax year, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

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

( 1 ) OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
Case C‑533/16

Volkswagen AG

v

Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167 to 171 — Right to deduct VAT — Right to refunds of VAT for taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund — Article 178(a) — Rules governing the exercise of the right to deduct VAT — Directive 2008/9/EC — Detailed rules for the refund of VAT — Limitation period — Principle of fiscal neutrality — VAT charged and paid several years after delivery of the goods in question — Refusal to allow the exercise of the right to a refund due to the expiry of the time limit which should have started to run from the date of supply of the goods)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 21 March 2018

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Rules governing the exercise of the right to deduct VAT — Applications to deduct or refund applications — Temporal limit of the issuing of an invoice several years after delivery of the goods — Limitation period — Calculation of the delay from the date of delivery of the goods — Refusal to allow the exercise of the right to a refund due to the expiry of the time limit before the application for refund was submitted — Unlawful

EU law must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings in which the value added tax (VAT) was charged to the taxable person and paid by it several years after delivery of the goods in question, the benefit of the right to claim a refund of VAT is denied on the grounds that the limitation period provided for by that legislation for the exercise of that right began to run from the date of supply and expired before the application for a refund was submitted.

(see para. 51, operative part)
Case C‑387/16

Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

v

Nidera BV

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Article 183 — Refund of overpaid VAT — Late refund — Amount of default interest due under national law — Reduction of that amount for reasons not attributable to the taxable person — Whether permissible — Fiscal neutrality — Legal certainty)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 28 February 2018

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction — Requests for a deduction or refund — Late refund — Amount of default interest due under national law — Reduction of that amount for reasons not attributable to the taxable person — Not permissible

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 183)

Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as precluding a reduction in the amount of interest normally payable under national law on overpaid value added tax which was not refunded in due time for reasons connected to circumstances not attributable to the taxable person, such as the high amount of that interest when compared with the amount of the overpaid value added tax, the period of time during which the overpayment was not refunded and the underlying reasons for this, as well as the losses actually incurred by the taxable person.

(see para. 38, operative part)
Harmonisation of fiscal legislation—Common system of value added tax—Exemptions linked to intra-Community transactions—Exemptions related to the supply of goods—Intra-Community acquisition of goods made in the territory of the Member State—Specific measures to ensure that such acquisitions are not subject to VAT—Condition—Dispatch or transport from a Member State other than that of VAT identification and to the person receiving a subsequent delivery—Scope—Taxable person resident and identified for VAT purposes in the Member State of dispatch or transport—Use of a VAT identification number of another Member State for such acquisitions—Included

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation—Common system of value added tax—Supply of goods—Place of intra-Community acquisition of goods that are the object of a subsequent supply—Establishing that place in the territory of the Member State that issued a VAT identification number—Late submission of the recapitulative statement—Penalties in the event of non-compliance with formal conditions—Establishing that place as the place where dispatch or transport to the person acquiring them ends—Not permissible

(Council Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, Art. 41, paras 1, 42, 263 and 265)
Appeal—Grounds—Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court—Inadmissibility—Challenge to the interpretation or application of EU law made by the General Court—Admissibility

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

(see paras 21-26, 51, 52)
Case C‑480/16

Fidelity Funds and Others

v

Skatteministeriet

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments — Restrictions — Taxation of dividends paid to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) — Dividends paid by companies resident in one Member State to non-resident UCITS — Tax exemption for dividends paid by companies resident in one Member State to resident UCITS — Justifications — Balanced allocation between Member States of the power to impose taxes — Coherence of the tax system — Proportionality)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 21 June 2018

Freedom to provide services—Free movement of capital—Provisions of the Treaty—Examination of a national measure affecting both freedoms—Criteria for determining the applicable rules (Arts 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU) Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments—Restrictions—Tax legislation—Taxation of dividends—Dividends paid to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities—Exemption, under certain conditions, from withholding tax on nationally-sourced dividends paid to resident undertakings—Taxation, by means of withholding tax, of nationally-sourced dividends paid to undertakings resident in another Member State—Examination of comparability of a cross-border situation with an internal situation—Taking into account of the objective pursued by the national provisions—Prevention or mitigation of a series of charges to tax or economic double taxation—Member State in which the dividends are sourced exercising its power of taxation on the income received by non-resident undertakings—Objectively comparable situations (Art. 63 TFEU) Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments—Restrictions—Tax legislation—Taxation of dividends—Dividends paid to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities—Exemption, under certain conditions, from withholding tax on nationally-sourced dividends paid to resident undertakings—Taxation, by means of withholding tax, of nationally-sourced dividends paid to undertakings resident in another Member State—Objectively comparable situations—Justification—Coherence of the tax system—Proportionality—Disproportionate (Art. 63 TFEU) Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments—Restrictions—Tax legislation—Taxation of dividends—Dividends paid to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities—Exemption, under certain conditions, from withholding tax on nationally-sourced dividends paid to resident undertakings—Taxation, by means of withholding tax, of nationally-sourced dividends paid to undertakings resident in another Member State—Not permissible (Art. 63 TFEU)
1.

Freedom of establishment—Exceptions—Activities connected with the exercise of official authority—Definition—Activities constituting a direct and specific participation in the exercise of official authority (Art. 51, first para., TFEU) (see paras 99-102)
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a national court giving judgment in default and which has the power, under national procedural rules, to examine of its own motion whether the term upon which the claim is based is contrary to national public policy laws is required to examine of its own motion whether the contract containing that term falls within the scope of that directive and, if so, whether that term is unfair.

In addition, the Court of Justice has held that, in view of the nature and importance of the public interest underlying the protection which Directive 93/13 confers on consumers, Article 6 thereof must be regarded as a provision of equal standing to national rules which rank, within the domestic legal system, as rules of public policy. It must be held that that classification extends to all the provisions of the directive which are essential for the purpose of attaining the objective pursued by Article 6 thereof (judgment of 30 May 2013, Asbeek Brusse andde Man Garabito, C‑488/11, EU:C:2013:341, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited).

It follows that, where the national court has the power, under internal procedural rules, to examine of its own motion whether a claim is contrary to national rules of public policy, which, according to the information provided in the order for reference, is the case in the Belgian judicial system for a court giving judgment in default, it must also exercise that power for the purposes of assessing of its own motion, in the light of the criteria laid down in Directive 93/13, whether the disputed term on which the claim is based and the contract containing that term come within the scope of that directive and, if so, whether that term is unfair (see, by analogy, judgment of 30 May 2013, Asbeek Brusse andde Man Garabito, C‑488/11, EU:C:2013:341, paragraph 45).

(see paras 35-37, operative part 1)
Case C‑554/16

EP Agrarhandel GmbH

v

Bundesminister für Land-, Forst-, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Support for farmers — Suckler-cow premium — Second paragraph of Article 117 — Transmission of information — Decision 2001/672/EC, as amended by Decision 2010/300/EU — Movements of bovine animals to summer grazing in mountain areas — Article 2(4) — Time limit for notification of the movement — Calculation — Notifications out of time — Eligibility for the payment of premiums — Condition — Taking account of the time limit for dispatch)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 7 June 2018

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — System of identification and registration of bovine animals and labelling of beef and veal — Movements of bovine animals to summer grazing in mountain areas — Obligation to draw up a list of the bovine animals concerned — Time limit for notification to the national competent authority — National legislation requiring receipt of the notification by the competent authority within the time limit set — Not permissible

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1760/2000; Commission Decision 2001/672, as amended by Decision 2010/300, Art. 2(4))

Article 2(4) of Commission Decision 2001/672/EC of 20 August 2001 laying down special rules applicable to movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in mountain areas, as amended by Commission Decision 2010/300/EU of 25 May 2010, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which, for the purpose of compliance with the time limit for notification of movements to summer grazing, the date of receipt of the notification is regarded as the determining factor.

Accordingly, neither the general scheme nor the purpose of Regulation No 1760/2000 and of Decision 2001/672 preclude the time limit in question from being understood as a time limit for dispatch so that, in some circumstances, the information to be transmitted may not be received by the competent authority of the Member State until several days after the time limit set.

(see paras 45, 46, operative part)