ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Corina-Hrisi Tulică v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor (C-249/12), Călin Ion Plavoșin v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală — Serviciul de Inspecție Fiscală Timiș (C-250/12)

(Joined Cases C-249/12 and C-250/12) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 73 and 78 - Immovable property transactions carried out by natural persons - Classification of those transactions as taxable - Determination of the VAT owing when the parties have made no provision for it at the time of conclusion of the contract - Question as to whether or not the vendor may recover the VAT from the purchaser - Consequences)

2014/C 9/14

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Corina-Hrisi Tulică (C-249/12), Călin Ion Plavoșin (C-250/12)

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor (C-249/12), Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș — Serviciul Soluționare Contestații, Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală — Serviciul de Inspecție Fiscală Timiș (C-250/12)

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Interpretation of Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Taxable amount — Immovable-property transactions carried out by natural persons not subject to VAT — Reclassification, by the national authorities, of those transactions as taxable transactions — Determination of the taxable amount, in the absence of any reference to VAT at the time when the contract was entered into — Deduction of the amount of VAT from the contract price or addition of that amount to the overall price paid by the purchaser

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Articles 73 and 78 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, when the price of a good has been established by the parties without any reference to value added tax and the supplier of that good is the taxable person for the value added tax owing on the taxed transaction, in a case where the supplier is not able to recover from the purchaser the value added tax claimed by the tax authorities, the price agreed must be regarded as already including the value added tax.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/9

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 — European Commission v Ireland, French Republic, Italian Republic, Eurallumina SpA, Aughinish Alumina Ltd

(Case C-272/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils - Court acting of its own motion - Plea adopted of its own motion by a court of the European Union - Relationship between tax harmonisation and monitoring of State aid - Respective powers of the Council and the Commission - Principle of legal certainty - Presumption of legality attaching to European Union measures)

2014/C 45/16

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte, D. Grespan, N. Khan and K. Walkerová, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, Agent, and P. McGarry SC), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and, initially, J. Gstalter, and, subsequently N. Rouam, Agents), Italian Republic, (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato), Eurallumina SpA, (represented by: R. Denton, A. Stratakis, L. Martin Alegi and L. Philippou, Solicitors), Aughinish Alumina Ltd, (represented by: C. Waterson, C. Little and J. Handoll, Solicitors)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV Ireland and Others v Commission by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12) — Errors of law — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Procedural irregularities adversely affecting the interests of the Commission — Court acting of its own motion — Infringement of Articles 87 and 88 EC and of the second paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — Concept of State aid — Whether contested exemptions attributable to Member States or the Council — Relationship between tax harmonisation and State aid — Principle of legal certainty — Presumption of legality — Principle of good administration.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court (Grand Chamber):

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV Ireland and Others v Commission;

2. Refers Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/19

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld — Germany) — Nipponkoa Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd v Inter-Zuid Transport BV

(Case C-452/12) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Articles 27, 33 and 71 - Lis pendens - Recognition and enforcement of judgments - Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) - Article 31(2) - Rules for coexistence - Action for indemnity - Action for a negative declaration - Negative declaratory judgment)

2014/C 52/32

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Krefeld

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nipponkoa Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd

Defendant: Inter-Zuid Transport BV

Intervener: DTC Surhuisterveen BV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Krefeld — Interpretation of Articles 27 and 71 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 (‘Brussels I’) (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Relationship with the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) — Rules on inter-relationship — Lis pendens — Duty to interpret Article 31(2) of the CMR in the light of Article 27 of the Brussels I Regulation — Relationship between an action for damages by the sender of the goods or the consignee thereof and a declaratory action by the carrier seeking a declaration that he is not liable for the damage or, if he is liable, that his liability is limited to a maximum amount (‘action for a negative declaration’).

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 71 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 it precludes an international convention from being interpreted in a manner which fails to ensure, under conditions at least as favourable as those provided for by that regulation, that the underlying objectives and principles of that regulation are observed.

2. Article 71 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes an interpretation of Article 31(2) of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, signed in Geneva on 19 May 1956, as amended by the Protocol signed in Geneva on 5 July 1978, according to which an action for a negative declaration or a negative declaratory judgment in one Member State does not have the same cause of action as an action for indemnity between the same parties in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/8

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Serron (Greece)) — Ioannis Christodoulou, Nikolaos Christodoulou, Afi N. Christodoulou AE v Elliniko Dimosio

(Case C-116/12) (1)

(Customs value - Goods exported to a third country - Export refunds - Processing in the exporting country regarded as non-substantial - Re-export of goods to the European Union - Determination of the customs value - Transaction value)

2014/C 52/12

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Diikitiko Protodikio Serron

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ioannis Christodoulou, Nikolaos Christodoulou, Afi N. Christodoulou AE

Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Diikitiko Protodikio Serron — Interpretation of Articles 24, 29, 32 and 146 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Customs value — Transaction value — Determination — Goods exported undergoing working or processing in the exporting country not sufficient for them to be considered as originating in the country of final processing within the meaning of Article 24 of the Regulation and without being subjected to outward processing arrangements for re-importation into the country of original export.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 29 and 32 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as applying to the determination of the customs value of goods imported on the basis of a contract which, although described as a contract of sale, in fact proves to be a working or processing contract. For the purposes of that determination, it is immaterial whether the working or processing operations satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 24 of that regulation, so that the goods concerned may be regarded as originating in the country where those operations took place.

2. Articles 29 and 32 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, must be interpreted as meaning that, when the customs value is determined, account must be taken of the value of the export refund which a product has benefited from and which was obtained by putting into effect a practice involving the application of provisions of European Union law with the aim of wrongfully securing an advantage.

(1) OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Ralph Schmid (liquidator of the assets of Aletta Zimmermann) v Lilly Hertel

(Case C-328/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Action to set a transaction aside by virtue of the debtor’s insolvency - Defendant resident in a third country - Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State where the debtor has the centre of his main interests)

2014/C 85/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ralph Schmid (liquidator of the assets of Aletta Zimmermann)

Defendant: Lilly Hertel

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the debtor has the centre of his main interests for decisions deriving directly from the insolvency proceedings — Action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency (Insolvenzanfechtungsklage) brought against a defendant whose place of residence is in a third country.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that is brought against a person whose place of residence is not within the territory of a Member State.

(1) OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Spain) — Constructora Principado SA v José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez

(Case C-226/12) (1)

(Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumer contracts - Contract for the purchase of immovable property - Unfair terms - Criteria for assessment)

2014/C 85/05

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Constructora Principado SA

Defendant: José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Concept of significant imbalance — Criteria to be taken into account.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that:

— the existence of a ‘significant imbalance’ does not necessarily require that the costs charged to the consumer by a contractual term have, as regards that consumer, a significant economic impact having regard to the value of the transaction in question, but can result solely from a sufficiently serious impairment of the legal situation in which that consumer, as a party to the contract, is placed by reason of the relevant national provisions, whether this be in the form of a restriction of the rights which, in accordance with those provisions, he enjoys under that contract, or a constraint on the exercise of those rights, or the imposition on him of an additional obligation not envisaged by the national rules;

— in assessing whether there is a significant imbalance, it is for the referring court to take into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded by referring to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of that contract, as well as all the other terms of the contract.

(1) OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Svidník — Slovakia) — Pohotovosť s.r.o. v Miroslav Vašuta

(Case C-470/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer credit contract - Unfair terms - Directive 93/13/EEC - Enforcement of an arbitration award - Application for leave to intervene in enforcement proceedings - Consumer protection association - National legislation which does not allow such an intervention - Procedural autonomy of the Member States))

2014/C 112/10

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Svidník

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pohotovosť s.r.o.

Defendant: Miroslav Vašuta

Intervening party: Združenie na ochranu občana spotrebiteľa HOOS

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Okresný súd vo Svidníku — Interpretation of Article 6(1) and Article 8 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) and Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Consumer credit contract — Enforcement of an arbitration award — Application by a consumer protection association for leave to intervene in the enforcement procedure — National legislation not providing for the possibility for a third party to intervene — Possibility for the national court to allow that application for leave to intervene.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 8 of that directive, read in conjunction with Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not allow a consumer protection association to intervene in support of a consumer in proceedings for enforcement, against the latter, of a final arbitration award.

(1) OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy)) — Airport Shuttle Express scarl (C-162/12), Giovanni Panarisi (C-162/12), Società Cooperativa Autonoleggio Piccola arl (C-163/12) and Gianpaolo Vivani (C-163/12) v Comune di Grottaferrata

(Joined Cases C-162/12 and C-163/12) (1)

(Requests for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/92 - Regulation (EC) No 12/98 - Car and driver hire services - National and regional legislation - Authorisation issued by municipalities - Conditions - Purely internal situations - Jurisdiction of the Court - Whether the requests are admissible)

2014/C 93/07

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Airport Shuttle Express scarl (C-162/12), Giovanni Panarisi (C-162/12), Società Cooperativa Autonoleggio Piccola arl (C-163/12) and Gianpaolo Vivani (C-163/12)

Defendant: Comune di Grottaferrata

In the presence of: Federnoleggio

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Articles 26 TFEU, 49 TFEU and 90 TFEU; Article 3 TEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 3 TFEU, 4 TFEU, 5 TFEU and 6 TFEU; Articles 101 and 102 TFEU; Council Regulation (EEC) No 2454/92 of 23 July 1992 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road passenger transport services within a Member State (OJ 1992 L 251, p. 1); and Council Regulation (EC) No 12/98 of 11 December 1997 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road passenger transport services within a Member State (OJ 1998 L 4, p. 10) — Car and driver hire service — National legislation making the provision of that service conditional upon possession of an authorisation issued by the municipal authorities and requiring anyone holding such an authorisation to have the normal base for their vehicle(s) located in the territory of the municipality which issued the authorisation, and to begin and end the hire in that territory.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the requests from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy) for a preliminary ruling, made by decisions of 19 October 2011 and 1 December 2011 in Joined Cases C-162/12 and C-163/12, to the extent that those requests concern the interpretation of Article 49 TFEU. Those requests are inadmissible to the extent that they concern the interpretation of other provisions of EU law.

(1) OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dortmund-West v Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH

(Case C-366/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13A(1)(b) - Supply of goods - Supply of cytostatic drugs for the treatment of outpatients - Services provided by different taxable persons - Article 13A(1)(c) - Provision of medical care - Drugs prescribed by a doctor working in an independent capacity in a hospital - Closely related activities - Services ancillary to the provision of medical care - Activities physically and economically indissociable))

2014/C 135/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Dortmund-West

Defendant: Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 13A(1)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Concept of activities closely related to hospital and medical care — Activity not constituting a service within the meaning of Article 6 of the directive — Activity carried out by a taxable person other than the person who provides the hospital or medical care — Activity closely related to medical care which is not exempt.

Operative part of the judgment

A supply of goods, such as the cytostatic drugs at issue in the main proceedings, prescribed in the course of outpatient cancer treatment by doctors working in an independent capacity in a hospital, may not be exempt from value added tax under Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2005/92/EC of 12 December 2005, unless that supply is physically and economically indissociable from the principal supply of medical care, which it is for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.