ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff

(Case C-161/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Concept - Publication online, without the consent of the rightholder, of a photograph previously published on another website without any restrictions and with the consent of the rightholder - New public))

(2018/C 352/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Dirk Renckhoff

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers the posting on one website of a photograph previously posted, without any restriction preventing it from being downloaded and with the consent of the copyright holder, on another website.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — X v Belastingdienst/Toeslagen

(Case C-175/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Directive 2005/85/EC - Article 39 - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 13 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Principle of non-refoulement - Decision rejecting an application for asylum and imposing an obligation to return - National legislation providing for a second level of jurisdiction - Automatic suspensory effect limited to the action at first instance))

(2018/C 408/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State — Netherlands

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Belastingdienst/Toeslagen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, and Article 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in the light of Articles 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, whilst making provision for appeals against judgments delivered at first instance upholding a decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return, does not confer on that remedy automatic suspensory effect even in the case where the person concerned invokes a serious risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement.

(1) OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.
2.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes expenditure by the Czech Republic under the EAGF on the measure to protect vineyards against damage caused by animals and birds for 2010 to 2012 in the total amount of EUR 2 123 199,04;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Fremoluc NV v Agentschap voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant (Vlabinvest APB) and Others

(Case C-343/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Fundamental freedoms - Articles 21, 45, 49 and 63 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Articles 22 and 24 - Right of pre-emption of a government body on land located in its operating area with a view to developing social housing - Housing allocated on a priority basis to private individuals who ‘have strong social, economic or socio-cultural ties’ with the area in which that body operates - Situation which is confined in all respects within a single Member State - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling))

(2018/C 408/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fremoluc NV

Defendants: Agentschap voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant (Vlabinvest APB), Vlaams Financieringsfonds voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant, Vlaamse Maatschappij voor Sociaal Wonen NV (VMSW), Christof De Knop and Others

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Dutch-language Court of First Instance, Brussels, Belgium), made by decision of 19 May 2017, is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích — Czech Republic) — Česká pojišťovna a.s. v WCZ, spol. s r.o.

(Case C-287/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Combating late payments in commercial transactions - Directive 2011/7/EU - Article 6(1) and (3) - Reimbursement of debt recovery costs - Costs resulting from reminders sent on account of late payment by a debtor))

(2018/C 408/27)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Česká pojišťovna a.s.

Defendant: WCZ, spol. s r.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as recognising that a creditor claiming compensation for the costs associated with sending reminders to a debtor due to the latter’s late payment is entitled to obtain reasonable compensation, on that basis and in addition to the fixed amount of EUR 40 laid down in Article 6(1) of that directive, for the purposes of Article 6(3) thereof, in respect of the part of those costs which exceeds that fixed amount.

(1) OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd

(Case C-153/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 168 and 173 - Deduction of input tax - Vehicle hire purchase transactions - Goods and services used for both taxable transactions and exempt transactions - Origin and scope of the right to deduct - Proportional deduction))

(2018/C 455/16)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168 and Article 173(2)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, first, even where the general costs relating to supplies of moveable goods by hire purchase, such as the supplies at issue in the main proceedings, are passed on not in the amount due by the customer in respect of the supply of the goods concerned, that is to say the taxable part of the transaction, but in the amount of the interest due in respect of the ‘finance’ part of the transaction, that is to say the exempt part thereof, those general costs must nonetheless be considered, for the purposes of value added tax (VAT), to be a component of the price of that supply and, second, Member States may not apply a method of apportionment which does not take account of the initial value of the goods concerned when they are supplied, since that method is not capable of ensuring a more precise apportionment than that which would arise from the application of the turnover-based allocation key.

(1) OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Tribunalul Botoşani, Ministerul Justiţiei v Maria Dicu

(Case C-12/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Directive 2010/18/EU - Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave - Parental leave not regarded as a period of actual work))

(2018/C 436/06)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tribunalul Botoşani, Ministerul Justiţiei

Defendant: Maria Dicu

Intervening parties: Curtea de Apel Suceava, Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time is to be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as the provision at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of determining a worker’s entitlement to paid annual leave, as guaranteed by that article for a worker in respect of a given reference period, does not treat the amount of time spent by that worker on parental leave during that reference period as a period of actual work.

(1) OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — ‘BTA Baltic Insurance Company’ AS, formerly ‘Balcia Insurance’ SE v ‘Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams’ AS

(Case C-648/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ - Accident involving two vehicles parked in a car park - Material damage to a vehicle caused by a passenger from a neighbouring vehicle opening the vehicle door))

(2019/C 16/31)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘BTA Baltic Insurance Company’ AS, formerly ‘Balcia Insurance’ SE

Defendant:‘Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams’ AS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’, set out in that provision, covers a situation in which the passenger of a vehicle parked in a car park, in opening the door of that vehicle, scraped against and damaged the vehicle parked next to it.

(1) OJ C 72, 26.2.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Milan Božičevič Ježovnik v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-528/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 143(1)(d) - Exemption from import VAT - Importation followed by an intra-Community supply - Risk of tax evasion - Good faith of the taxable importer and supplier - Assessment - Duty of care of the taxable importer and supplier)

(2019/C 4/11)

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Milan Božičevič Ježovnik

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 143(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/69/EC of 25 June 2009, must be interpreted to the effect that, in circumstances where the taxable importer and supplier benefitted from an exemption from import value added tax on the basis of an authorisation issued after a prior examination by the competent customs authorities in the light of the evidence provided by that taxable person, the latter is not required to pay value added tax after the event where it is revealed, during a subsequent examination, that the substantive conditions for the exemption had not been met, except where it is established, in the light of objective evidence, that that taxable person knew, or should have known, that the supplies subsequent to the imports at issue were involved in fraud committed by the customer and that he did not take all reasonable steps in his power to avoid that fraud, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-93/17) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Recovery requirement - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil its obligations - Undertaking which engages in both civil and military activities - Non-implementation - Essential interests of the security of a Member State - Article 346(1)(b) TFEU - Financial penalties - Periodic penalty payment - Lump sum - Ability to pay - ‘N’ Factor - Factors which are the basis for the assessment of the ability to pay - Gross domestic product - Weighting of votes of the Member State in the Council of the European Union - New voting rules in the Council))

(2019/C 16/09)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and A. Samoni-Rantou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take, on the date on which the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice issued on 27 November 2014 by the European Commission, all the measures all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 28 June 2012, Commission v Greece (C-485/10, EU:C:2012:395), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFUE.

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the European Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 7 294 000 for each six month period from the date of delivery of the present judgement until the date of compliance with the judgment of 28 June 2012, Commission v Greece (C-485/10, EU:C:2012:395).

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission a lump sum EUR 10 000 000.

4. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — C&D Foods Acquisition ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-502/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Proposed sale of shares in a sub-subsidiary - Expenditure associated with the provision of services acquired for the purposes of that sale - Sale not carried out - Request for a deduction of input tax - Scope of VAT))

(2019/C 16/28)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C&D Foods Acquisition ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2, 9 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a share disposal transaction, envisaged but not carried out, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for which the direct and exclusive reason does not lie in the taxable economic activity of the company concerned, or which does not constitute the direct, permanent and necessary extension of that economic activity, does not come within the scope of value added tax.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 November 2018 — Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-340/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Invalidity proceedings - Declaration of invalidity on the basis of an earlier United Kingdom trade mark - Genuine use - Proof - Effects of the procedure for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on the proceedings before the General Court and the lawfulness of the decision at issue - None))

(2019/C 35/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. (represented by: E. Baud and P. Marchiset, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Botis and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Brodie and Z. Lavery, acting as Agents, and by N. Saunders, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
1.

Article 2(1)(c) 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 predetermined amount received by an economic operator in the event of early termination by its client, or for a reason attributable to the latter, of a contract for the provision of services with a minimum commitment period, which amount corresponds to the amount that the operator would have received during the remainder of that period had it not been for such termination, this being a matter for the referring court to determine, must be regarded as consideration for a supply of services for consideration and, as such, must be regarded as being subject to VAT.
2.

Article 308 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, must be interpreted as meaning that the margin of the travel agent, and, consequently, its taxable amount, corresponds to the difference between the total amount, exclusive of value added tax (VAT), to be paid by the traveller and the actual input cost incurred by the travel agent in respect of supplies of goods and services provided by other taxable persons, in so far as those transactions are for the direct benefit of the traveller. When the amount of the payment on account corresponds to the total price of the tourist service or to a significant part of that price, and the travel agent has not yet incurred any actual cost, or has incurred only a limited part of the individual total cost of that service, or even when the individual actual cost of the trip incurred by the travel agent cannot be determined at the time when the payment on account is made, the profit margin can be determined on the basis of an estimate of the total actual cost which it will ultimately have to incur. For the purpose of such an estimate, the travel agent must take into account, where relevant, the costs which it has already actually incurred at the time of receipt of the payment on account. For the purpose of the calculation of the margin, the estimated total actual cost is deducted from the total price of the trip and the taxable amount for VAT to be paid at the time of receipt of the payment on account is obtained by multiplying the amount of that payment on account by the percentage corresponding to the part of the total cost of the trip that the estimated profit margin, thus determined, represents.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — E.B. v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter BVA

(Case C-258/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2 - Attempted act of same-sex indecency committed by a civil servant on male minors - Disciplinary sanction adopted in 1975 - Compulsory early retirement accompanied by a reduction in the pension entitlement - Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation - Effects of the application of Directive 2000/78/EC on the disciplinary sanction - Calculation of the retirement pension paid))

(2019/C 93/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: E.B.

Respondent body: Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter BVA

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as applying, after the expiry of the time limit for transposing that directive, namely from 3 December 2003, to the future effects of a final disciplinary decision, adopted before the entry into force of that directive, ordering the early retirement of a civil servant, accompanied by a reduction in his pension entitlement.

2. Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that referred to in point 1 of the operative part of the present judgment, it obliges the national court to review, with respect to the period starting on 3 December 2003, not the final disciplinary decision ordering the early retirement of the civil servant concerned, but the reduction in his pension entitlement, in order to calculate the amount he would have received in the absence of any discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.

(1) OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.
2.

Article 2(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 2006/112, read together with Article 14(1) and Article 24(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, where, pursuant to a purchase contract for dismantling, the purchaser, namely a demolition company, purchases goods to be dismantled and undertakes, subject to a contractual penalty, to demolish or dismantle and dispose of those goods and to dispose of the waste within a period fixed in the contract, that contract consists of a supply of goods for consideration, that is the supply of goods to be dismantled, which is subject to value added tax only if it is made by a taxable person acting as such, which is for the referring court to ascertain. In so far as the purchaser is required to demolish or dismantle and dispose of those goods and to dispose of the resulting waste, thereby specifically meeting the needs of the seller, which is for the referring court to ascertain, that contract also includes a supply of services for consideration, that is the performance of demolition works or dismantling and waste disposal, if that purchaser attributes a value to that supply of goods which it factors in to the price quoted as a factor reducing the purchase price of the goods to be dismantled, which is for the referring court to ascertain.