ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-156/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Tigers GmbH v Hauptzollamt Landshut (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 — Article 1(3) — Community Customs Code — Article 78 — Rule making the application of individual anti-dumping duty rates conditional upon presentation of a valid commercial invoice — Whether a valid commercial invoice may be presented after the customs declaration — Refusal to refund)

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Tigers GmbH v Hauptzollamt Landshut

(Case C-156/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 — Article 1(3) — Community Customs Code — Article 78 — Rule making the application of individual anti-dumping duty rates conditional upon presentation of a valid commercial invoice — Whether a valid commercial invoice may be presented after the customs declaration — Refusal to refund)’

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tigers GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Landshut

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China must be interpreted as meaning that it allows the presentation, after the customs declaration has been made, of a valid commercial invoice, for the purposes of fixing a definitive anti-dumping duty, in the case where all the other preconditions necessary for obtaining a company-specific anti-dumping duty rate are satisfied and compliance with the proper application of the anti-dumping duties is ensured, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.

( 1 ) OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
8.

Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an importer imported goods under a distribution agreement has no incidence on his ability to plead a legitimate expectation on the same conditions as an importer who has imported goods by buying them directly from the exporter, that is to say, if three cumulative conditions are satisfied. It is necessary, first, that the failure to levy the duties was due to an error on the part of the competent authorities themselves, secondly, that that error was such that it could not reasonably have been detected by a person liable for payment acting in good faith and, finally, that that person complied with all the provisions laid down by the legislation in force as regards his customs declaration. To that end, it is for such an importer to guard against the risks of an action for post-clearance recovery, inter alia by seeking to obtain from the other contracting party to that distribution agreement, at the time when the agreement is concluded or thereafter, all the necessary evidence confirming that the ‘Form A’ certificate of origin in respect of those goods was correctly issued. There can thus be no legitimate expectation within the meaning of the provision, in particular where, although he has clear reasons for doubting the accuracy of a ‘Form A’ certificate of origin, that importer failed to obtain from that contracting party information concerning the circumstances of the issue of that certificate in order to verify whether those doubts were well founded.
1.

Article 99(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that an action for infringement brought before an EU trade mark court in accordance with Article 96(a) of that regulation may not be dismissed on the basis of an absolute ground for invalidity, such as that provided for in Article 52(1)(b) of that regulation, without that court having upheld the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity brought by the defendant in that infringement action, pursuant to Article 100(1) of the regulation, and based on the same ground for invalidity.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Teodor Ispas, Anduţa Ispas v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice Cluj

(Case C-298/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - General principles of EU law - Right to good administration and rights of the defence - National tax rules providing for the right to be heard and the right to be informed during an administrative tax procedure - Decision to levy value added tax issued by the national tax authorities without giving the taxpayer access to the information and the documents upon which that decision was based))

(2018/C 005/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Teodor Ispas, Anduţa Ispas

Defendant: Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice Cluj

Operative part of the judgment

The general principle of EU law of respect for the rights of the defence must be interpreted as a requirement that, in national administrative procedures of inspection and establishment of the basis for the assessment of value added tax, an individual is to have the opportunity to have communicated to him, at his request, the information and documents in the administrative file and considered by the public authority when it adopted its decision, unless objectives of public interest warrant restricting access to that information and those documents.

(1) OJ C 314, 29.08.2016.
3.

Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the prohibition imposed on the members of a selective distribution system for luxury goods, which operate as distributors at the retail level of trade, of making use, in a discernible manner, of third-party undertakings for internet sales does not constitute a restriction of customers, within the meaning of Article 4(b) of that regulation, or a restriction of passive sales to end users, within the meaning of Article 4(c) of that regulation.
1.

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, and the right to an effective remedy set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a dispute between a worker and his employer as to whether the worker is entitled to paid annual leave under the first of those articles, they preclude the worker having to take his leave first before establishing whether he has the right to be paid in respect of that leave.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/21

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-462/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90(1) - Reduction of the price under conditions determined by the Member States - Reduction of the taxable amount - Principles laid down in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400) - Discounts granted to private medical insurance funds))

(2018/C 072/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey

Defendant: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

In the light of the principles defined by the Court in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400, paragraphs 28 and 31), regarding the determination of the taxable amount for value added tax and having regard to the principle of equal treatment under EU law, Article 90(1) 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 discount granted, under national law, by a pharmaceutical company to a private health insurance company results, for the purposes of that article, in a reduction of the taxable amount in favour of that pharmaceutical company, where it supplies medicinal products via wholesalers to pharmacies which make supplies to persons covered by private health insurance that reimburses the purchase price of the medicinal products to persons it insures.

(1) OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/10

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer

(Case C-226/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy - Gas industry - Security of gas supply - Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 - Obligation of natural gas undertakings to take measures to safeguard the supply of gas to protected customers - Point 1 of the second paragraph of Article 2 - Definition of ‘protected customers’ - Article 8(2) - Additional obligation - Article 8(5) - Possibility for natural gas undertakings of fulfilling their obligation at regional level or at Union level - National legislation imposing on gas suppliers an additional gas storage obligation, the scope of which includes customers who are not protected customers within the meaning of Regulation No 994/2010 - Obligation to be fulfilled, as regards 80 % of the gas stored, on the territory of the Member State concerned))

(2018/C 072/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz)

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Environnement, de l’Énergie et de la Mer

Intervening parties: Storengy, Total Infrastructures Gaz France (TIGF)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Council Directive 2004/67/EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that in the main proceedings, that imposes on natural gas suppliers a gas storage obligation, the scope of which includes customers who are not among the protected customers listed in point 1 of the second paragraph of Article 2 of that regulation, provided that the conditions set out in Article 8(2) of the regulation are complied with, a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

2. Article 8(5) of Regulation No 994/2010 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that requires natural gas suppliers to comply with their obligations to hold gas stocks, in order to guarantee security of supply in the event of crisis, necessarily and exclusively through infrastructure located within the territory of the Member State. In the present case, it is however for the referring court to ascertain whether the power which the competent authority has under the national legislation to take account of the ‘other regulatory instruments’ available to the suppliers concerned ensures that it is actually possible for them to meet their obligations at regional level or at European Union level.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
2.

Article 2(1)(c), Article 3(1) and (2) and the Annex to Directive 75/363, as amended by Directive 82/76, must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of the obligation, for a Member State, to provide appropriate remuneration, within the meaning of that Annex, for any period of full-time or part-time specialist medical training begun in 1982 and continued up to 1990, does not depend on the adoption, by that Member State, of measures transposing Directive 82/76. The national court is required, when it applies provisions of national law adopted either before or after a directive, to interpret them as far as possible in the light of the wording and the purpose of those directives. Where, owing to the absence of national measures transposing Directive 82/76, the result prescribed by that directive cannot be achieved by interpretation, by taking account of the entirety of domestic law and applying the methods of interpretation recognised by it, EU law requires the Member State concerned to make good damage caused to individuals through failure to transpose that directive. It is for the referring court to determine whether all the conditions laid down in that regard by the case-law of the Court of Justice are met for the Member State to have incurred liability under EU law.
1.

Point 23 of Annex IX to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, in so far as it refers to investments made ‘on holdings and/or premises of producer organisations’, must be interpreted as meaning that: — the mere fact that an investment made in the context of an operational programme covered by Article 60(1) of that regulation is located on land which is owned by a third party, and not the producer organisation concerned, is not, in principle, under point 23 of Annex IX, a ground for non-eligibility of aid for the expenditure incurred, by that producer organisation, in respect of that investment; — point 23 of Annex IX relates to investments made on holdings and/or premises which are, in law and in fact, under the exclusive control of that producer organisation, so that any use of those investments for the benefit of a third party be excluded.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — T — 2, družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme, d.o.o. (in insolvency) v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-396/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 184 and 185 - Adjustment of the deduction of input tax paid - Change in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted - Notion of ‘transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid’ - Effect of a decision approving an arrangement with creditors having the force of res judicata))

(2018/C 134/08)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: T — 2, družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme, d.o.o. (in insolvency)

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 185(1) 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 the reduction of a debtor’s obligations resulting from the final approval of an arrangement with creditors constitutes a change in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted, for the purposes of that provision.

2. The first subparagraph of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted to the effect that the reduction of a debtor’s obligations resulting from the final approval of an arrangement with creditors does not constitute a case of a transaction remaining totally or partially unpaid that does not give rise to an adjustment of the initial deduction, where that reduction is definitive, although that is a matter for the referring court to determine.

3. The second subparagraph of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted to the effect that, in order to implement the option provided for in that provision, a Member State is not required to make express provision for an obligation to adjust the deductions in the case of transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid.

(1) OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
1.

Declares that, by adopting and retaining in force legislation allowing the sale of tax-exempted petroleum products by the filling stations of Katastimata Aforologiton Eidon AE at the border posts of Kipoi Evrou (Greece), Kakavia (Greece) and Evzonoi (Greece) which are all situated in regions bordering third countries, namely the Republic of Turkey, the Republic of Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/7

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV

(Case C-284/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Bilateral investment treaty concluded in 1991 between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic and still applicable between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic - Provision enabling an investor from one Contracting Party to bring proceedings before an arbitral tribunal in the event of a dispute with the other Contracting Party - Compatibility with Articles 18, 267 and 344 TFEU - Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ - Autonomy of EU law))

(2018/C 161/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Slowakische Republik

Defendant: Achmea BV

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 267 and 344 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision in an international agreement concluded between Member States, such as Article 8 of the Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member State before an arbitral tribunal whose jurisdiction that Member State has undertaken to accept.

(1) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România (CMVRO) v Autoritatea Naţională Sanitară Veterinară şi pentru Siguranţa Alimentelor

(Case C-297/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - National legislation limiting the right to retail, use and administer veterinary medicinal, anti-parasitic and organic products to veterinary practitioners - Freedom of establishment - Requirement that the share capital of establishments retailing veterinary medicinal products be held only by veterinary practitioners - Protection of public health - Proportionality))

(2018/C 142/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România (CMVRO)

Defendant: Autoritatea Naţională Sanitară Veterinară şi pentru Siguranţa Alimentelor

Operative part of the judgment

(1) Article 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which veterinary practitioners have an exclusive right to retail and use organic products, special purpose anti-parasitic products and veterinary medicinal products.

(2) Article 15 of Directive 2006/123 is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which shares in establishments retailing veterinary medicinal products must be owned exclusively by one or more veterinary practitioners.

(1) OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.
1.

A national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the supplement to a total permanent incapacity pension is suspended during the period in which the beneficiary of that pension receives a retirement pension in another Member State or in Switzerland, constitutes a provision on reduction of benefit for the purposes of Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-256/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Anti-dumping - Validity of a regulation seeking to implement a judgment of the Court declaring previous regulations invalid - Obligation to implement - Legal basis - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 14 - Setting of the criteria relating to the collection of anti-dumping duties by Member States - Direction suspending the repayment of anti-dumping duties by national customs authorities - Resumption of the proceeding that preceded the regulations declared invalid - Article 10 - Non-retroactivity - Community Customs Code - Article 221 - Time-bar - Article 236 - Repayment of duties not owed))

(2018/C 166/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deichmann SE

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 of 17 February 2016 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.