ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev and Others

(Case C-310/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 325(1) TFEU - Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests - Criminal proceedings concerning VAT offences - Principle of effectiveness - Taking of evidence - Interception of telecommunications - Authorisation granted by a court that lacks jurisdiction - Taking those interceptions into consideration as evidence - Provisions of national law - Prohibition))

(2019/C 93/02)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties in the main proceedings

Petar Dzivev, Galina Angelova, Georgi Dimov, Milko Velkov

Operative part of the judgment

Article 325(1) TFEU, and Article 1(1)(b) and Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Luxembourg on 26 July 1995, read in conjunction with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted to the effect that, in the light of the principle of effectiveness of the prosecution of value added tax (VAT) offences, they do not preclude a national court from applying a national provision excluding, from a prosecution, evidence such as the interception of telecommunications requiring prior judicial authorisation, where that authorisation was given by a court that lacked jurisdiction, in a situation in which that evidence alone is capable of proving that the offences in question were committed.

(1) OJ C 310, 29.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/17

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Dănuţ Podilă and Others v Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători ‘CFR Călători’ SA București (C-133/17), Costel Nicușor Mucea v SMDA Mureş Insolvency SRL, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of SC Industria Sârmei SA Campia Turzii (C-134/17)

(Joined Cases C-133/17 and C-134/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 89/391/EEC - Safety and health of workers at work - Classification of work places as places characterised by particular or special conditions - Assessment of the risks to safety and health at work - Employer’s obligations))

(2018/C 166/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dănuţ Podilă, Vasile Oniţă, Dumitru Cornel Bara, Gheorghe Podilă, Alexandru Daniel Coneru, Mihai Călin Junc, Dănuţ Bungău, Francisc Chudi, Ioan Iancu, Ionel Negruţ, Dan Florin Roxin (C-133/17), Costel Nicușor Mucea (C-134/17)

Defendants: Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători ‘CFR Călători’ SA București (C-133/17), SMDA Mureş Insolvency SRL, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of SC Industria Sârmei SA Campia Turzii (C-134/17)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 114(3) and Articles 151 and 153 TFEU and Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work must be interpreted as not being applicable to national laws, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down strict deadlines and procedures not allowing the national courts to review or establish the classification of the activities of workers in various risk groups, on the basis of which retirement pensions are calculated for those workers.

(1) OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/10

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Peugeot Deutschland GmbH v Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV

(Case C-132/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2010/13/EU - Definitions - Concept of ‘audiovisual media service’ - Scope - Channel available on YouTube for videos promoting new passenger car models))

(2018/C 134/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Peugeot Deutschland GmbH

Respondent: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (the Audiovisual Media Services Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that the definition of ‘audiovisual media service’ covers neither a video channel, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on which internet users can view short promotional videos for new passenger car models, nor a single video of that kind considered in isolation.

(1) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
Case C-251/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Collection and treatment of urban waste water — Directive 91/271/EEC — Articles 3, 4 and 10 — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Fine and lump sum)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-251/17) ( 1 )

‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Collection and treatment of urban waste water — Directive 91/271/EEC — Articles 3, 4 and 10 — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Fine and lump sum)’

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and L. Cimaglia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, M. Russo and F. De Luca, avvocati dello Stato)

Operative part of the judgment

1) By failing to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment of 19 July 2012, Commission v Italy (C-565/10, not published, EU:C:2012:476), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.

2) If the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, the Italian Republic is ordered to pay to the European Commission a fine of EUR 30112500 for every six months of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 19 July 2012, Commission v Italy (C-565/10, not published, EU:C:2012:476), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the full compliance with the judgment of 19 July 2012, Commission v Italy (C-565/10, not published, EU:C:2012:476), 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 of population equivalents of the agglomerations whose urban waste water collection and treatment systems have been rendered compliant with the judgment of 19 July 2012, Commission v Italy (C-565/10, not published, EU:C:2012:476), at the end of the period in question, compared with the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations not having such systems on the day of delivery of the present judgment.

3) The Italian Republic is ordered to pay to the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 25 million.

4) The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Case C-65/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Oftalma Hospital Srl v C.I.O.V. — Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Health and social services — Award contrary to the rules on public procurement — Requirement to comply with the principles of transparency and equal treatment — Concept of ‘certain cross-border interest’ — Directive 92/50/EEC — Article 27)

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Oftalma Hospital Srl v C.I.O.V. — Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte

(Case C-65/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Health and social services — Award contrary to the rules on public procurement — Requirement to comply with the principles of transparency and equal treatment — Concept of ‘certain cross-border interest’ — Directive 92/50/EEC — Article 27)’

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Oftalma Hospital Srl

Defendants: C.I.O.V. — Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte

Intervener: Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Torino (TO1)

Operative part of the judgment

1. When awarding a public service contract that falls within the scope of Article 9 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, and is, consequently, in principle, subject only to Articles 14 and 16 of that directive, a contracting authority is nonetheless also required to comply with the fundamental rules and general principles of the FEU Treaty, in particular the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality and the consequent obligation of transparency, provided that, at the date of its award, the contract had certain cross-border interest, which it is for the referring court to verify.

2. Article 27(3) of Directive 92/50 must be interpreted as not applying to public service contracts referred to in Annex I B to that directive.

( 1 ) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Case C-421/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — SZEF Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna w Kutnie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(a) — Scope — Taxable transactions — Supply of goods for consideration — Transfer, by a public limited company of a building to a shareholder as the counterpart to the buy-back of its shares)

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — SZEF Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna w Kutnie

(Case C-421/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(a) — Scope — Taxable transactions — Supply of goods for consideration — Transfer, by a public limited company of a building to a shareholder as the counterpart to the buy-back of its shares)’

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SZEF Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Defendant: Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna w Kutnie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the transfer by a limited company to one of its shareholders of the ownership of immovable property, made, as is the one at issue in the main proceedings, as consideration for the buy-back, by that limited company, under a mechanism for the redemption of shares provided for in national legislation, of shares held in its share capital by that shareholder, constitutes a supply of goods for consideration subject to VAT provided that that immovable property is used in the economic activity of that limited company.

( 1 ) OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Case C-250/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Virgílio Tarragó da Silveira v Massa Insolvente da Espírito Santo Financial Group, SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 15 — Effects of insolvency proceedings on lawsuits pending concerning an asset or a right of which the debtor has been divested — Concept of ‘lawsuit pending’ — Substantive proceedings for the recognition of the existence of a debt)

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Virgílio Tarragó da Silveira v Massa Insolvente da Espírito Santo Financial Group, SA

(Case C-250/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 15 — Effects of insolvency proceedings on lawsuits pending concerning an asset or a right of which the debtor has been divested — Concept of ‘lawsuit pending’ — Substantive proceedings for the recognition of the existence of a debt)’

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Virgílio Tarragó da Silveira

Defendant: Massa Insolvente da Espírito Santo Financial Group, SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as applying to a lawsuit pending before a court of a Member State seeking an order that a debtor pay a sum of money due under a contract for the provision of services and pay monetary damages for failure to comply with that contractual obligation, in the event that (i) the debtor was declared insolvent in insolvency proceedings opened in another Member State; and (ii) the declaration of insolvency applies to all of the debtor’s assets.

( 1 ) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
1.

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action seeking compensation for damage caused by anticompetitive conduct, the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ covers, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, inter alia, the place where the loss of income consisting in loss of sales occurred, that is to say, the place of the market which is affected by that conduct and on which the victim claims to have suffered those losses.
Case C-364/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Varna Holideis’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’– Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Supply of immovable property effected prior to the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union — Nullity of the contract of sale coming to light after the accession — Obligation to adjust the initial deduction — Interpretation — Jurisdiction of the Court)

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Varna Holideis’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’– Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-364/17) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Supply of immovable property effected prior to the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union — Nullity of the contract of sale coming to light after the accession — Obligation to adjust the initial deduction — Interpretation — Jurisdiction of the Court)’

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Varna Holideis’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’– Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Administrativen sad — Varna (Administrative Court, Varna, Bulgaria).

( 1 ) OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo

(Case C-140/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168 and 184 - Deduction of input tax - Adjustment - Immovable property acquired as capital goods - Initial allocation to an activity which does not confer entitlement to deduct input tax and subsequently also to an activity subject to VAT - Public body - Taxable-person status at the time of the taxable transaction))

(2018/C 328/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Defendant: Gmina Ryjewo

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167, 168 and 184 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of the neutrality of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a body governed by public law from being entitled to a right to adjustment of deductions of value added tax paid on immovable property acquired as capital goods in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where, at the time of the acquisition of those goods, first, they could, by their very nature, be used both for taxable activities and for non-taxable activities but were initially used for non-taxable activities, and second, that public body had not expressly stated its intention to use those goods for a taxable activity but had also not excluded the possibility that they might be used for such a purpose, so long as it follows from an assessment of all the factual circumstances, which it is for the referring court to carry out, that the condition laid down by Article 168 of Directive 2006/112, according to which the taxable person must have acted as a taxable person at the time when it made that acquisition, is satisfied.

(1) OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Edel Grace, Peter Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála

(Case C-164/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Article 6(3) and (4) - Assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site - Plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site - Wind farm project - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Article 4 - Special Protection Area (SPA) - Annex I - Hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) - Suitable habitat fluctuating over time - Temporary or permanent reduction of the amount of appropriate land - Measures included in the project to ensure that, during the lifetime of the project, the amount of land that is in fact suitable for hosting the natural habitat of the species will not be reduced and indeed may be enhanced))

(2018/C 328/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edel Grace, Peter Sweetman

Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is intended to carry out a project on a site designated for the protection and conservation of certain species, of which the area suitable for providing for the needs of a protected species fluctuates over time, and the temporary or permanent effect of that project will be that some parts of the site will no longer be able to provide a suitable habitat for the species in question, the fact that the project includes measures to ensure that, after an appropriate assessment of the implications of the project has been carried out and throughout the lifetime of the project, the part of the site that is in fact likely to provide a suitable habitat will not be reduced and indeed may be enhanced may not be taken into account for the purpose of the assessment that must be carried out in accordance with Article 6(3) of the directive to ensure that the project in question will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned; that fact falls to be considered, if need be, under Article 6(4) of the directive.

(1) OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Miriam Bichat (C-61/17), Daniela Chlubna (C-62/17), Isabelle Walkner (C-72/17) v Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

(Joined Cases C-61/17, C-62/17 and C-72/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC - First subparagraph of Article 2(4) - Definition of ‘undertaking controlling the employer’ - Procedures for consultation of workers - Burden of proof))

(2018/C 352/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Miriam Bichat (C-61/17), Daniela Chlubna (C-62/17), Isabelle Walkner (C-72/17)

Respondent: Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘undertaking controlling the employer’ covers all undertakings linked to that employer by shareholdings in the latter or by other links in law which allow it to exercise decisive influence in the employer’s decision-making bodies and compel it to contemplate or to plan for collective redundancies.

(1) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Viking Motors AS and Others v Tallinna linn, Maksu- ja Tolliamet

(Case C-475/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 401 - Domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes - Prohibition - Concept of ‘turnover tax’ - Local sales tax - Essential characteristics of VAT - None))

(2018/C 352/17)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Viking Motors AS, TKM Beauty Eesti OÜ, TKM King AS, Kaubamaja AS, Selver AS

Defendants: Tallinna linn, Maksu- ja Tolliamet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 401 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 it does not preclude the maintenance or introduction of a tax such as the sales tax at issue in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.