ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/8

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Belgium) — Vaditrans BVBA v Belgische Staat

(Case C-102/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Driver’s rest periods - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 8(6) and (8) - Whether it is possible to take daily rest periods and reduced weekly rest periods away from base and in a vehicle - Exclusion of regular weekly rest periods))

(2018/C 072/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vaditrans BVBA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 8(6) and (8) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as meaning that a driver may not take the regular weekly rest periods referred to in Article 8(6) in his vehicle.

2. Consideration of the second question referred has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Regulation No 561/2006, having regard to the principle of legality in criminal proceedings, enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 83/4

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stadion Amsterdam CV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-463/16) (1)

((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))

(2018/C 083/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stadion Amsterdam CV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

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.

(1) OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/22

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Brigitte Schlömp v Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall

(Case C-467/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of Freedom, Security and Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Lugano II Convention - Lis pendens - Concept of court - Arbitration authority under Swiss law, responsible for the conciliation procedure prior to all substantive proceedings))

(2018/C 072/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brigitte Schlömp

Defendant: Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 27 and 30 the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, which was approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of lis pendens, the date on which a mandatory arbitration procedure was lodged before an arbitration authority under Swiss law is the date on which a ‘court’ is deemed to be seised.

(1) OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.
2.

Orders that, if the failure to fulfil obligations found in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, the Hellenic Republic be required to pay to the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 3 276 000 for each six-month period of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 24 June 2004, Commission v Greece (C-119/02, not published, EU:C:2004:385), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 24 June 2004, Commission v Greece (C-119/02, not published, EU:C:2004:385) has been complied with in full, the actual amount of which must be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total amount relating to each of those periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion representing the number of population equivalent units that have actually been brought into compliance with the judgment of 24 June 2004, Commission v Greece (C-119/02, not published, EU:C:2004:385), in the Thriasio Pedio area, at the end of the period in question, in comparison to the number of population equivalent units that have not been brought into compliance with the judgment of 24 June 2004, Commission v Greece (C-119/02, not published, EU:C:2004:385), on the day of delivery of the present judgment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/4

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd, Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-264/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - International air freight forwarding services - Pricing agreement affecting the final price of the services))

(2018/C 112/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd, Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd (represented by: F. Montag and M. Eisenbarth, Rechtsanwälte, and F. Hoseinian, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd and Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/5

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Stanisław Pieńkowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

(Case C-307/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Article 131 - Article 146(1)(b) - Article 147 - Exemptions on exportation - Article 273 - Legislation of a Member State making the benefit of the exemption subject to the attainment of a minimum level of turnover or the conclusion of an agreement with a person authorised to make VAT refunds to travellers))

(2018/C 142/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stanisław Pieńkowski

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 131, Article 146(1)(b) and Articles 147 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in the context of a supply of goods for export to be carried in the personal luggage of travellers, the vendor, a taxable person, must have attained a minimum level of turnover in the preceding tax year, or have concluded an agreement with a person authorised to refund VAT to travellers, where the mere failure to meet those conditions results in the definitive loss for the vendor of the exemption in relation to that supply.

(1) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/10

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Imofloresmira — Investimentos Imobiliários SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-672/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - TVA Directive - Exemption of the leasing and letting of immovable property - Right of option available to taxable persons - Implementation by the Member States - Deduction of input tax - Use for the purposes of the taxable person’s taxed transactions - Adjustment of the initial deduction - Not permissible))

(2018/C 142/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Imofloresmira — Investimentos Imobiliários SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167, 168, 184, 185 and 187 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation which provides for the adjustment of the value added tax initially deducted on the ground that a property, for which the right to opt for taxation was exercised, is regarded as no longer being used by the taxable person for the purposes of its own taxed transactions, where that property has remained unoccupied for more than two years, even though it is established that the taxable person has sought to rent it during that period.

(1) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/8

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2018 — European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission

(Case C-384/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Plant protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 - Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution - Inclusion of active substance ‘copper compounds’ in that list - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures - Individually concerned person))

(2018/C 166/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Copper Task Force (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, C. Vila Gisbert, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, abogadas, and by M. Miserendino, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders European Union Copper Task Force to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — ‘SEGRO’ Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Sárvári Járási Földhivatala (C-52/16), Günther Horváth v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal (C-113/16)

(Joined Cases C-52/16 and C-113/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Rights of usufruct over agricultural land - National legislation permitting such rights to be acquired in the future only by close family members of the owner of the land and cancelling, without providing for compensation, the rights previously acquired by legal persons or by natural persons who cannot demonstrate a close family tie with the owner of the land))

(2018/C 161/04)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:‘SEGRO’ Kft. (C-52/16), Günther Horváth (C-113/16)

Defendants: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Sárvári Járási Földhivatala (C-52/16), Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal (C-113/16)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which rights of usufruct which have previously been created over agricultural land and the holders of which do not have the status of close relation of the owner of that land are extinguished by operation of law and are, consequently, deleted from the property registers.

(1) OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.

OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Joined Cases C-234/16 and C-235/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 April 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Consejería de Economía y Hacienda del Principado de Asturias (C-234/16), Consejo de Gobierno del Principado de Asturias (C-235/16) (References for a preliminary ruling — Regional tax on large retail establishments — Freedom of establishment — Protection of the environment and town and country planning — State aid — Selective measure)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 April 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Consejería de Economía y Hacienda del Principado de Asturias (C-234/16), Consejo de Gobierno del Principado de Asturias (C-235/16)

(Joined Cases C-234/16 and C-235/16) ( 1 )

‛(References for a preliminary ruling — Regional tax on large retail establishments — Freedom of establishment — Protection of the environment and town and country planning — State aid — Selective measure)’

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)

Respondents: Consejería de Economía y Hacienda del Principado de Asturias (C-234/16), Consejo de Gobierno del Principado de Asturias (C-235/16)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a tax levied on large retail establishments, such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

2. A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings imposed on large distribution establishments according, in essence, to their display and sales area does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU to the extent that it exempts establishments whose sales area is less than 4000 m2. Nor, in so far as that tax exempts establishments which pursue the business of a garden centre or of selling vehicles, construction materials, machinery or industrial supplies and whose sales area does not exceed 10000 m2, does it constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, provided that those establishments do not have as significant an adverse effect on the environment and on town and country planning as the others, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

( 1 ) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
Case C-645/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Right of the commercial agent to an indemnity or compensation for damage following termination of the commercial agency contract — Article 17 — Exclusion from the right to indemnity in the event of termination of the contract during the trial period provided for in the contract)

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL

(Case C-645/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Right of the commercial agent to an indemnity or compensation for damage following termination of the commercial agency contract — Article 17 — Exclusion from the right to indemnity in the event of termination of the contract during the trial period provided for in the contract)’

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL

Defendant: Demeures terre et tradition SARL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that the indemnity and compensation regimes laid down by that article, in paragraphs 2 and 3 respectively, in the event of termination of the commercial agency contract are applicable where termination occurs during the trial period provided for by the contract.

( 1 ) OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.
Case C-382/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Finance Court, Rhineland-Palatinate — Germany) — Hornbach-Baumarkt AG v Finanzamt Landau (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Legislation of a Member State — Calculation of the taxable revenue of companies — Advantage granted gratuitously by a resident company to a non-resident company to which is it linked by a relationship of interdependence — Correction of the taxable income of the resident company — No correction of taxable income in the event of an identical advantage granted by a resident company to another resident company to which it is linked by such a relationship — Restriction on the freedom of establishment — Justification)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Finance Court, Rhineland-Palatinate — Germany) — Hornbach-Baumarkt AG v Finanzamt Landau

(Case C-382/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Legislation of a Member State — Calculation of the taxable revenue of companies — Advantage granted gratuitously by a resident company to a non-resident company to which is it linked by a relationship of interdependence — Correction of the taxable income of the resident company — No correction of taxable income in the event of an identical advantage granted by a resident company to another resident company to which it is linked by such a relationship — Restriction on the freedom of establishment — Justification)’

Referring court

Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hornbach-Baumarkt AG

Defendant: Finanzamt Landau

Operative part of the judgment

Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU), in conjunction with Article 48 EC (now Article 54 TFEU), must be interpreted as, in principle, not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the income of a company resident in a Member State which granted to a company established in another Member State with which it has a relationship of interdependence advantages under terms that depart from those that would have been agreed on by unrelated third parties under the same or similar circumstances, must be calculated as it would have been if the terms which would have been agreed with unrelated third parties had been applicable, and be corrected, despite the fact that such a correction is not made in respect of taxable income when the same advantages are granted by a resident company to another resident company with which it has a relationship of interdependence. However, it is for the national court to determine whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings affords the resident taxpayer the opportunity to prove that the terms were agreed on for commercial reasons resulting from its status as a shareholder of the non-resident company.

( 1 ) OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
Case C-566/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nyíregyházi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Dávid Vámos v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 282 to 292 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Exemption scheme — Obligation to opt for the application of the special scheme in the reference calendar year)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nyíregyházi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Dávid Vámos v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-566/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 282 to 292 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Exemption scheme — Obligation to opt for the application of the special scheme in the reference calendar year)’

Referring court

Nyíregyházi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dávid Vámos

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes a special value added tax taxation scheme providing for an exemption for small enterprises — that scheme having been adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of Chapter I of Title XII of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax — from being applied to a taxable person who fulfils all the material conditions but did not exercise the right to opt for the application of that scheme at the same time as he declared the commencement of his economic activities to the tax authority.

( 1 ) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.