ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 2 February 2018 — Skatteministeriet (Danish Ministry of Taxation) v KPC Herning

(Case C-71/18)

(2018/C 134/21)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet (Danish Ministry of Taxation)

Defendant: KPC Herning

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 135(1)(j), cf. Article 12(1)(a) and (2), read in conjunction with Article 135(1)(k), cf. Article 12(1)(b) and (3), of the VAT Directive (1) for a Member State, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to consider a supply of land on which at the time of supply there is a building as a sale of building land subject to value added tax (VAT), when it is the parties’ intention that the building is to be demolished completely or partially in order to make room for a new building?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
3.

Must the imperative requirement laid down in Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Articles 3, 5, 6, 16 and 22 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, in conjunction with Articles 4(1), 11(3) and 16(3) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989, for the Member States to limit the working time of all workers in general, be understood to be satisfied for ordinary workers by the internal national legislation, contained in Articles 34 and 35 of the Workers’ Statute from which, as settled case-law has shown, it cannot be inferred that employers are required to set up a system for recording actual daily working time for full-time workers who have not expressly agreed, whether individually or collectively, to work overtime, unlike mobile workers or persons working in the merchant navy or railway transport?
1.

Is Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (1) compatible with the precautionary principle when it provides no specific definition of an active substance, leaving it to the applicant to determine what it designates as the active substance in its product and granting it scope to focus its whole application dossier on a single substance, while its end product placed on the market is made up of several substances?
1.

(a) Must Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, in cases such as those at issue here, those provisions preclude a national rule such as Article 6a, introductory sentence and (b), of the AOW? (1) That rule means that a resident of the Netherlands is not insured for purposes of the social security scheme of that State of residence if that resident works in another Member State and is subject to the social security legislation of the State of employment on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71. (2) The present cases are characterised by the fact that, on the basis of the legislation of the State of employment, the persons concerned do not qualify for an old-age pension because of the limited scope of their work there. (b) For the purpose of the answer to Question 1(a), is it significant that, for a resident of a State of residence which, under Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, is not the competent State, there is no obligation to pay contributions under the social security schemes of that State of residence? For the periods during which that resident works in another Member State, he comes exclusively under the social security system of the State of employment by virtue of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, and in such a case Netherlands national legislation does not provide for an obligation to pay contributions either.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 20 February 2018 — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Case C-133/18)

(2018/C 166/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Question referred

Must Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it creates a limitation rule which has the effect that a taxable person of a Member State which applies for a refund of value added tax from a Member State in which it is not established is not able to regularise its refund application before a tax court if it has not complied with the time limit for replying to a request for information made by the administration in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of that article, or, on the contrary, as meaning that that taxable person may, in the context of the right of appeal laid down in Article 23 of the directive, and having regard to the principles of neutrality and proportionality of VAT, regularise its application before the tax court?

(1) Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 23).
—

Declare that, by failing to bring into force by 18 April 2016 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243) or, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 106(1) of that directive;
1.

Did a contractual relationship exist between the applicant and the defendant for the purposes of Article 5(1) of [Council] Regulation No 44/2001 (1) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, even though no contract had been concluded between the applicant and the defendant and the flight was part of a package of services provided on the basis of a contract between the applicant and a third party (travel agency)?
2.

Are the legislation and practice of a Member State which, when the relevant default-interest provisions are examined, distinguish between whether the tax authority failed to refund the tax in compliance with the national provisions then in force — which, moreover, infringed Community law — or whether it failed to do so in breach of such provisions and which, as regards the amount of the interest accrued on the VAT whose refund could not be claimed within a reasonable period due to a national-law requirement declared contrary to EU law by the Court of Justice, set out two definable periods, with the result that, — in the first period, taxable persons only have the right to receive default interest at the central bank base rate, in view of the fact that since the Hungarian legislation contrary to Community law was still then in force, the Hungarian tax authorities did not act unlawfully by not authorising the payment within a reasonable period of the VAT included in the invoices, whereas — in the second period interest double the central bank base rate — applicable moreover in the event of delay in the legal system of the Member State in question — must be paid only for the late payment of the default interest corresponding to the first period consistent with Community law, in particular with the provisions of the VAT Directive (having regard in particular to Article 183 thereof), and with the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and proportionality?
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, how must […] Article 14[(1)(a)] and […] Article 21[(5), third subparagraph] of Directive 2003/96 be combined as regards small producers which consume the electricity that they produce for the purposes of their business? Specifically, do those Articles require that there be a minimal level of taxation resulting from either (i) the electricity produced being taxed and the natural gas used being exempted from tax, or (ii) the production of electricity being exempt from tax and the State then being required to tax the natural gas used?
Case C-235/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 28 March 2018 — Vega International Car Transport and Logistic — Trading GmbH

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 28 March 2018 — Vega International Car Transport and Logistic — Trading GmbH

(Case C-235/18)

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vega International Car Transport and Logistic — Trading GmbH

Other party to the proceedings: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie (now the Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie)

Question referred

Does the concept referred to in Article 135(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax ( 1 ) include transactions consisting in the provision of fuel cards and in negotiating, financing and accounting for the purchase of fuel using those cards, or can such complex transactions be considered to be chain transactions the primary purpose of which is the supply of fuel?

( 1 ) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-225/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 28 March 2018 — Grupa Lotos S.A.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 28 March 2018 — Grupa Lotos S.A.

(Case C-225/18)

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grupa Lotos S.A.

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Question referred

Are Article 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax ( 1 ) and the principles of neutrality and proportionality contrary to a provision such as that in Article 88(1)(4) of the Law of 11 March 2004 on tax on goods and services (Dz. U. 2011, No 177, item 1054, as amended; currently Dz. U. of 2017, item 1221, as amended), under which a reduction or refund of input VAT does not apply to acquisitions by a taxable person of overnight accommodation and catering services, with the exception of the purchase of ready meals prepared for passengers by taxable persons providing passenger transport services, even where these provisions were introduced into the law on the basis of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Council Directive 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? ( 2 )

( 1 ) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

( 2 ) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
1.

Is a provision such as that laid down in Article 465.5 of the Spanish Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil 1/2000 (Law on Civil Procedure) which limits the power of the Tribunal de Apelación (Court of Appeal) to assess of its own motion all the effects of a declaration of invalidity, which is upheld on appeal, compatible with Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, ( 1 ) when those effects have been determined restrictively at first instance and the consumer has not appealed against the judgment at first instance declaring the term null and void?
Case C-267/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 17 April 2018 — Delta Antrepriză de Construcții și Montaj 93 SA v Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 17 April 2018 — Delta Antrepriză de Construcții și Montaj 93 SA v Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA

(Case C-267/18)

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

Question referred

Can 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 ( 1 ) be interpreted as meaning that the termination of a public works contract on the ground that part of the works was subcontracted without the contracting authority’s authorisation constitutes a significant or persistent deficiency in the performance of a substantive requirement under a prior public contract leading to an economic operator being excluded from participation in a public procurement procedure?

( 1 ) OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.
2.

If the answer to the first question is that the establishment of the statutory monopoly must be recognised as meeting the SGEI criteria, is a rule such as that resulting from the combined provisions of Article 10(3) decreto legislativo (Legislative Decree) No 504/1992, Article 2(18)-(20) of legge (Law) No 662/1996 and Article 3(1) decreto del Presidente della Repubblica (Presidential Decree) No 144/2001, which grant Poste Italiane s.p.a. the power unilaterally to determine the level of the fee, payable by the agent collecting the ICI taxes, that is applied to each management operation carried out on the postal current account in the name of the agent, contrary to Articles 106(2) TFEU (formerly Article 90 of the Treaty, then Article 86(2) TEC) and 107(1) TFEU (formerly Article 92 of the Treaty, then Article 87 TCE), according to the interpretation of such rules provided by the Court of Justice with reference to the requirements for distinguishing a lawful measure — compensatory of public service obligations — from unlawful State aid (judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 July 2003, Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, C-280/00), regard being had to the fact that Poste Italiane spa, by board decision No 57/1996, set that fee at 100 Lire for the period from 1 April 1997 to 31 May 2001 and at EUR 0,23 for the period from 1 June 2001?
1.

Do Articles 1(2) and 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts ( 1 ) make it possible — if the determination of certain contractual provisions which stipulate the manner in which an obligation is to be performed by the parties (its amount) as unfair were to result in the contract being annulled in its entirety, which would be unfavourable to the consumer — to fill gaps in the contract not pursuant to a supplementary provision of law which explicitly replaces the unfair term, but rather pursuant to provisions of national law which provide for supplementing the effects of a legal transaction as expressed in its substance to include the effects arising from the principles of equity (rules of social conduct) or established customs?
3.

If the previous questions are answered in the affirmative, must the termination of the contracts of employment of workers engaged pursuant to Law 14/2011 of 1 June 2011 on Science, Technology and Innovation and the termination of permanent contracts on objective grounds in accordance with Article 52 of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Workers’ Statute) be regarded as comparable?
Case C-391/18: Action brought on 13 June 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia

Action brought on 13 June 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia

(Case C-391/18)

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Mataija and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Croatia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(4), read in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste (OJ 2011 L 199, p. 48) by failing to notify the Commission of its national programme for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste;

— order the Republic of Croatia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 13(1) of Directive 2011/70/Euratom, Member States are required to notify the Commission of their national programmes for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste and of any subsequent significant changes, and, under Article 15(4) of that directive, Member States were required, for the first time, to notify the Commission of the content of their national programme as soon as possible, but not later than 23 August 2015.

The Republic of Croatia has failed to adopt a national programme such as that referred to in the abovementioned provisions and, in any event, has failed to notify it to the Commission. Thus, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(4), read in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Directive 2011/70/Euratom.
a.

On the premiss that ‘worker’ must be taken to mean any person who, in the Member State in question, is protected as such by the national employment legislation, can a person who has a contract for a position of trust with the transferor be regarded as a ‘worker’ for the purposes of Article 2(1)(d) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC ( 1 ) of 12 March 2001 and can that person, accordingly, enjoy the protection which that legislation confers?
Case C-258/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 13 April 2018 — H. Solak v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 13 April 2018 — H. Solak v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-258/18)

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H. Solak

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Questions referred

1. Can a Turkish national who is duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State, has obtained the nationality of that Member State without renouncing his Turkish nationality and subsequently voluntarily renounced the nationality of that Member State and thus Union citizenship rely on Article 6 of Decision 3/80 ( 1 ) to avoid a residence requirement in national social security legislation which can, however, be imposed on Union citizens?

2. Is Article 6(1) of Decision 3/80, with due regard to Article 59 of the Additional Protocol, to be construed as meaning that it precludes a statutory regulation of a Member State such as Article 4a of the TW, ( 2 ) on the basis of which an awarded supplementary benefit is withdrawn if the recipient moves to Turkey, even if that recipient has left the territory of the Member State on his own initiative after voluntarily renouncing the nationality of a Member State and whilst it has not been found that he is no longer duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that Member State?

( 1 ) Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families (OJ 1983 C 110, p. 60).

( 2 ) Wet van 6 november 1986, houdende verlening van toeslagen tot het relevante sociaal minimum aan uitkeringsgerechtigden op grond van de Werkloosheidswet, de Ziektewet, de Algemene Arbeidsongeschiktheidswet, de Wet op de arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering en de Wet arbeidsongeschiktheidsvoorziening militairen (toeslagenwet) (Law of 6 November 1986 on the award of supplements to the relevant social minimum to persons entitled to benefits under the Law on unemployment, the Law on sickness, the general Law on incapacity for work, the Law on insurance against incapacity for work, and the Law on incapacity for work of members of the armed forces).
2.

Depending on the answer to the first question, is Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit national legislation which, for failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in Article 3 of that regulation, provides for the cumulative imposition of the penalties of a term of imprisonment or a fine and confiscation of the undeclared sum without any review as to the origin of that sum? Is the simultaneous application of Article 251(1) of the NK and Article 251(2) of the NK — that is to say, imposition of the penalty provided for in Article 251(1) of the NK and confiscation, on conviction, of the contested sum that is the object of the criminal offence under Article 251(1) of the NK, in accordance with the obligation under article 251(2) of the NK — in conformity with Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1889/2005, which, for failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in Article 3 of that regulation, calls for penalties which are effective, dissuasive and proportionate to the offence and to the risk to society which the latter poses?
2.

2.1 Does the fact that the reference index, the IRPH, incorporated by the seller or supplier in a loan contract term, is regulated by laws or regulations preclude the court from having to verify that all the information on that index that may impact on the scope of the consumer’s commitment was communicated to the consumer, in order to find that the term was drafted in plain intelligible language within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13? 2.2 Is Directive 93/13 contrary to the case-law pursuant to which the obligation of transparency is satisfied by the mere reference to the official index in the preformulated term, without any other information in that regard being required from the seller or supplier, who included the term, or, on the contrary, is it necessary, in order to comply with the obligation of transparency, for information on the configuration, scope and practical operation of the mechanism of this reference index to be supplied by the seller or supplier who included the term? 2.3 Is Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 to be interpreted as meaning that the omission of consumer information on the configuration, operation and previous development of the IRPH and its foreseeable future development, at least in the short or medium term, taking account of the knowledge of the seller or supplier on those elements at the time of contracting, allows it to be considered that the term incorporated in the contract is not drafted in plain intelligible language within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13? 2.4 Is the requirement for transparency of the term in Article 4(2) of the directive to be interpreted as requiring the consumer to have been informed about the specific regulations governing the reference index and its contents, as relevant information for properly understanding the economic and legal importance of the term incorporating that index? 2.5 Can promotional material and information provided by the seller or supplier who included the term, which may mislead the consumer when concluding his loan contract referenced to the IRPH, constitute a factor on which the court can base its assessment of the unfair character of the contractual term under Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13?