ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — NN A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-28/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Corporation tax - National tax legislation making the transfer of the losses sustained by a permanent establishment, situated on national territory, of a company established in another Member State, to a resident company belonging to the same group, subject to a condition as to the impossibility of using such losses for the purpose of a foreign tax))

(2018/C 301/06)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NN A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the resident companies in a group are permitted to deduct, from their group profits, the losses sustained by a resident permanent establishment of a non-resident subsidiary of that group only in the case where the rules applicable in the Member State in which that subsidiary has its registered office do not permit those losses to be deducted from the latter’s profits, when the application of that legislation is combined with that of a convention preventing double taxation allowing, in the latter Member State, the deduction from the income tax payable by the subsidiary of a sum corresponding to the income tax paid, in the Member State on the territory of which that permanent establishment is situated, in respect of the latter’s activity. However, Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding such legislation in the case where the effect of its application is to deprive that group of any effective possibility of deducting those losses from the group’s overall profits, where it is not possible to set off those losses against that subsidiary’s profits in the Member State on the territory of which that subsidiary is established, these being matters for the referring court to verify.

(1) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Case C-57/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (Spain) — Eva Soraya Checa Honrado v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 2008/94/EC — Article 3, first paragraph — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Severance pay on termination of employment relationships — Transfer of workplace obliging the worker to change residence — Change to a fundamental element of the contract of employment — Termination of the contract of employment by the worker — Principle of equality and non-discrimination)

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (Spain) — Eva Soraya Checa Honrado v Fondo de Garantía Salarial

(Case C-57/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 2008/94/EC — Article 3, first paragraph — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Severance pay on termination of employment relationships — Transfer of workplace obliging the worker to change residence — Change to a fundamental element of the contract of employment — Termination of the contract of employment by the worker — Principle of equality and non-discrimination)’

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eva Soraya Checa Honrado

Defendant: Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that, where, according to the national legislation in question, some forms of statutory compensation payable on termination of a contract of employment at the worker’s request and those payable in the case of dismissals on objective grounds, such as those envisaged by the referring court, fall within the concept of ‘severance pay on termination of employment relationships’, within the meaning of that provision, statutory compensation payable on termination of a contract of employment at the worker’s request on account of a transfer of workplace by the employer, obliging the worker to change residence, must also fall within that concept.

( 1 ) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v DPAS Limited

(Case C-5/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption - Article 135(1)(d) - Transactions concerning payments and transfers - Concept - Scope - Dental payment plan by direct debit))

(2018/C 328/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: DPAS Limited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(d) 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 exemption from value added tax which is provided for therein for transactions concerning payments and transfers does not apply to a supply of services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists for the taxable person in requesting from the relevant financial institutions, first, that a sum of money be transferred from a patient’s bank account to that of the taxable person pursuant to a direct debit mandate and, second, that that sum, after deduction of the remuneration due to that taxable person, be transferred from the latter’s bank account to the respective bank accounts of that patient’s dentist and insurer.

(1) OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
1.

Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, read in the light of Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that the collection of personal data by members of a religious community in the course of door-to-door preaching and the subsequent processing of those data does not constitute either the processing of personal data for the purpose of activities referred to in Article 3(2), first indent, of that directive or the processing of personal data carried out by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity, within the meaning of Article 3(2), second indent, thereof.
2.

The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings –– which provided for the transfer by inheritance of early retirement support and was approved by the European Commission as compatible with Regulation No 1257/1999 –– gave rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the heirs of farmers who received that support, and that a conclusion such as that mentioned in the minutes of the meeting of the European Commission Committee on Rural Development of 19 October 2011, to the effect that such support may not be passed on by inheritance, did not bring that legitimate expectation to an end.
2.

Articles 12 to 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as meaning that the limitations of liability for which they provide apply to the provider of an IP address rental and registration service allowing the anonymous use of internet domain names, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, inasmuch as that service comes within the scope of one of the categories of service referred to in those articles and meets all the corresponding conditions, in so far as the activity of such a service provider is of a merely technical, automatic and passive nature, implying that he has neither knowledge of nor control over the information transmitted or cached by his customers, and in so far as he does not play an active role in allowing those customers to optimise their online sales activity, these being matters for the referring court to verify.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — 2M-Locatel A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-555/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 8528 71 13 and 8528 71 90 - Apparatus capable of receiving, decoding and processing live TV signals transmitted using internet technology))

(2018/C 408/39)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: 2M-Locatel A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that apparatus capable of receiving, decoding and processing live TV signals transmitted using internet technology, such as the apparatus at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified under subheading 8528 71 90 thereof, provided that they do not incorporate a video tuner or a ‘television tuner’, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hannover

(Case C-471/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff and statistical nomenclature - Classification of goods - Fried instant noodles - Tariff subheading 1902 30 10))

(2018/C 399/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that subheading 1902 30 10 thereof covers instant noodle dishes, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are, in essence, composed of a block of pre-cooked and fried noodles.

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-114/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of the Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha (Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain) - Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms - Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Delimitation - Discretion of the Member States))

(2018/C 408/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

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

(1) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
2.

Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) must be interpreted as applying to a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceeding, in which a worker, who has been refused a medical certificate indicating the existence of a risk to breastfeeding posed by her work and, consequently, an allowance in respect of risk during breastfeeding, challenges, before a court or other competent authority of the Member State concerned, the risk assessment of her work, provided that that worker adduces factual evidence to suggest that that evaluation did not include a specific assessment taking into account her individual situation and thus permitting the presumption that there is direct discrimination on the grounds of sex, within the meaning of Directive 2006/54, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. It is then for the respondent to prove that that risk assessment did actually include such a specific assessment and that, accordingly, the principle of non-discrimination was not infringed.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG v Michael Strotzer

(Case C-149/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Compensation in the event of file-sharing in breach of copyright - Internet connection accessible by members of the owner’s family - Exemption from liability of the owner without the need to specify the nature of the use of the connection by the family member - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 7))

(2018/C 455/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Michael Strotzer

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, read in conjunction with Article 3(1) thereof, and Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, as interpreted by the relevant national courts, the owner of an internet connection used for copyright infringements through file-sharing cannot be held liable to pay damages if he can name at least one family member who might have had access to that connection, without providing further details as to when and how the internet was used by that family member.

(1) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie — Poland) — Feniks Sp. z o.o. v Azteca Products & Services SL

(Case C-337/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Special jurisdiction - Article 7(1)(a) - Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ - Actio pauliana))

(2018/C 436/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Feniks Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Azteca Products & Services SL

Operative part of the judgment

In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, an actio pauliana, whereby the person entitled to a debt arising under a contract requests that an act by which his debtor has transferred an asset to a third party and which is allegedly detrimental to his rights be declared ineffective in relation to the creditor, is covered by the rule of international jurisdiction provided for in Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

(1) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — proceedings brought by Boston Scientific Ltd

(Case C-527/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Scope - Medical device incorporating as an integral part a substance which, used separately, may be considered to be a medicinal product - Directive 93/42/EEC - Article 1(4) - Concept of ‘administrative authorisation procedure’)

(2019/C 4/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Party to the main proceedings

Boston Scientific Ltd

In the presence of: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that a prior authorisation procedure, under Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, for a device incorporating as an integral part a substance, within the meaning of Article 1(4) of that directive as amended, cannot be treated in the same way, for the purposes of applying that regulation, as a marketing authorisation procedure for that substance under Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, even if that substance was the subject of the assessment provided for in the first and second paragraphs of section 7.4 of Annex I to Directive 93/42, as amended by Directive 2007/47.

(1) OJ C 402, 17.11.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma — Italy) — Martina Sciotto v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

(Case C-331/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 5 - Measures to prevent the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships - National legislation excluding the application of those measures in the sector of activity of operatic and orchestral foundations)

(2019/C 4/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martina Sciotto

Defendant: Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the common law rules governing employment relationships and intended to penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts by the automatic transformation of the fixed-term contract into a contract of indefinite duration if the employment relationship goes beyond a specific date are not applicable to the sector of activity of operatic and orchestral foundations, where there is no other effective measure in the domestic legal system penalising abuses identified in that sector.

(1) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
1.

The Combined Nomenclature listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, and from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that an article, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a movable child safety gate to be mounted to a wall or a door frame, does not constitute part of those gates and must be classified under subheading 7318 15 90 of the Combined Nomenclature.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Dermod Patrick O’Brien v Ministry of Justice, formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs

(Case C-432/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Part-time workers - Retirement pension - Calculation of the amount of the pension - Account taken of years of service completed before expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 97/81/EC - Immediate application to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old law))

(2019/C 16/23)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dermod Patrick O’Brien

Respondent: Ministry of Justice, formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, periods of service prior to the deadline for transposing Directive 97/81, as amended by Directive 98/23, must be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the retirement pension entitlement.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Goslar v baumgarten sports & more GmbH

(Case C-548/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Taxation of professional football player agencies - Payment by instalments and subject to a condition - Chargeable event, chargeability and collection of the tax))

(2019/C 35/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Goslar

Defendant: baumgarten sports & more GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 64(1) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding the chargeable event and chargeability of a tax on the supply of agency services for professional football players by an agent, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, paid in conditional instalments over several years further to the placement, from being regarded as occurring or taking effect when the player is placed.

(1) OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.