ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Rhein-Sieg-Kreis (C-266/17), Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG (C-267/17) v Verkehrsbetrieb Hüttebräucker GmbH, BVR Busverkehr Rheinland GmbH (C-266/17), Kreis Heinsberg (C-267/17)

(Joined Cases C-266/17 and C 267/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Public passenger transport services by rail and by road - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Article 5(1) and (2) - Direct award - Contracts for public passenger transport services by bus and tram - Conditions - Directive 2004/17/EC - Directive 2004/18/EC)

(2019/C 187/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-266/17)

Applicant: Rhein-Sieg-Kreis

Defendants: Verkehrsbetrieb Hüttebräucker GmbH, BVR Busverkehr Rheinland GmbH

Intervener: Regionalverkehr Köln GmbH (C-266/17)

Case (C-267/17)

Applicant: Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Kreis Heinsberg

Intervener: WestVerkehr GmbH (C-267/17)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road does not apply to the direct award of contracts for public passenger transport services by bus which do not take the form of service concessions contracts for the purposes of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts

(1) OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
1.

In a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which fictitious circular sales of electricity made between the same traders and for the same amounts did not cause tax losses, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principles of neutrality and proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) relating to fictitious transactions while requiring the persons who enter VAT on an invoice to pay that tax, including for a fictitious transaction, provided that national law allows the tax liability arising from that obligation to be adjusted when the issuer of that invoice, who was not acting in good faith, has, in sufficient time, wholly eliminated the risk of any loss of tax revenue, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — A-Fonds v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

(Case C-598/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Existing aid and new aid - Concept of new aid - Refund of dividend tax - Scheme widened to companies established outside the Member State concerned - Free movement of capital - Obligations of national courts)

(2019/C 220/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A-Fonds

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 107 and 108 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court cannot assess whether a residence condition, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, complies with Article 56(1) EC, now Article 63(1) TFEU, where the scheme for the refund of dividend tax concerned constitutes an aid scheme.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2019 — RF v Commission

(Case C-660/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Application submitted by fax - Original of the application lodged out of time with the Registry of the General Court - Delay in the delivery of mail - Definition of ‘force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances’)

(2019/C 270/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: RF (represented by: K. Komar-Komarowski, radca prawny)

Other party: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski, G. Meessen and I. Rogalski, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Rejects the request for admission of new evidence;

2. Dismisses the appeal;

3. Orders RF to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — M. Çoban v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-677/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Additional Protocol - Article 59 - Decision No 3/80 - Social security for migrant workers - Waiver of residence clauses - Article 6 - Invalidity benefit - Withdrawal - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Special non-contributory cash benefits - Residence condition - Directive 2003/109/EC - Long-term resident status)

(2019/C 255/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M. Çoban

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families, in conjunction with Article 59 of the Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970 in Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which withdraws a supplementary benefit from a Turkish national who returns to his country of origin and who holds, at the date of his departure from the host Member State, long-term resident status, within the meaning of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents.

(1) OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — Prenatal S.A. v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC)

(Case C-589/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Import of textile products wrongly declared as originating from Jamaica - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Application for remission - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 - European Commission’s decision to refuse in a particular case - Validity)

(2019/C 319/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prenatal S.A.

Defendant: Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC)

Operative part of the judgment

The consideration of Commission Decision C(2008) 6317 final of 3 November 2008 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case (Case REM 03/07), in the light of Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of that decision.

(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Amazon EU Sàrl

(Case C-649/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 6(1)(c) - Information requirements for distance and off-premises contracts - Obligation, for a trader, to indicate its telephone number and its fax number ‘where they are available’ - Scope)

(2019/C 305/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Respondent: Amazon EU Sàrl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as, firstly, precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on traders, before concluding a distance or off-premises contract referred to in Article 2(7) and (8) of that directive, to provide, in all circumstances, their telephone number. Secondly, that provision does not imply an obligation for traders to establish a telephone or fax line, or to create a new email address to allow consumers to contact them and requires that number, the fax number or their email address to be communicated only where those traders already have those means of communication with consumers;

Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, although that provision requires traders to make available to consumers a means of communication capable of satisfying the criteria of direct and effective communication, it does not preclude those traders from providing other means of communication than those listed in that provision in order to satisfy those criteria.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
1.

Declares that, by extending the concession for the section of the A12 Livorno-Civitavecchia motorway from Livorno to Cecina (Italy) from 31 October 2028 to 31 December 2046, without publishing a contract notice, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 58 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1422/2007 of 4 December 2007;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 — European Commission v Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd, European Bicycle Manufacturers Association

(Case C-709/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing regulation (EU) 2015/776 - Import of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines - Extension to those imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 13 - Circumvention - Assembly operations - Provenance and origin of bicycle parts - Parts consigned from China to Sri Lanka, worked in Sri Lanka and then consigned from Sri Lanka to Pakistan for assembly)

(2019/C 383/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: M. França, J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd (represented by: P. Bentley QC), European Bicycle Manufacturers Association, (represented by: J. Beck, Solicitor, and by L. Ruessmann, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 October 2017, Kolachi Raj Industrial v Commission (T-435/15, EU:T:2017:712);

2. Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd;

3. Orders Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
2.

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that a non-resident investment fund cannot be granted a refund of dividend tax which it has had to pay in that Member State, on the ground that it has not met the legal conditions for that refund, namely that it does not distribute the proceeds of its investments in full to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis within eight months of the end of its financial year, where, in its Member State of establishment, the proceeds of its investments which have not been distributed are deemed to have been distributed or are taken into account in the tax which that Member State levies on shareholders or participants as though that profit had been distributed and where, having regard to the objective underlying those conditions, such a fund is in a situation that is comparable to that of a resident fund which benefits from the refund of that tax, which it is for the referring court to verify.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 October 2019 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-391/17) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Own resources - Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) with the European Union - Decision 91/482/EEC - Article 101(2) - Acceptance for import into the European Union free of customs duties of products not originating in the OCT but which are in free circulation in an OCT and are re-exported as such to the European Union - Export certificates EXP - Wrongful issue of certificates by the authorities of an OCT - Article 4(3) TEU - Principle of sincere cooperation - Liability of the Member State having special relations with the OCT concerned - Obligation to compensate the loss of the European Union’s own resources caused by the wrongful issue of export certificates EXP - Imports of aluminium from Anguilla)

(2019/C 432/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, J.-F. Brakeland, L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by J. Kraehling, G. Brown, R. Fadoju and S. Brandon, acting as Agents, and by K. Beal QC and P. Luckhurst, Barristers, and subsequently by S. Brandon and F. Shibli, acting as Agents, and by K. Beal QC and P. Luckhurst, Barristers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, P. Huurnink and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to compensate the loss of own resources resulting from the wrongful issue, in the light of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community, by the authorities of Anguilla, of export certificates EXP in respect of the imports of aluminium from Anguilla during the period 1999/2000, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch

(Case C-102/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 65(2) - European Certificate of Succession - Application for a certificate - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 - Mandatory or optional nature of the form established by Article 1(4) of Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014))

(2019/C 93/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch

Operative part of the judgment

Article 65(2) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession and Article 1(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 of 9 December 2014 establishing the Forms referred to in Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of an application for a European Certificate of Succession, within the meaning of Article 65(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, the use of Form IV in Annex 4 to Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014 is optional.

(1) OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Mydibel SA v État belge

(Case C-201/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Deduction of input tax - Immovable property acquired as capital goods - Sale and lease back - Adjustment of deductions of VAT - Principle of VAT neutrality - Principle of equal treatment)

(2019/C 187/31)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mydibel SA

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

1. Subject to verification of the relevant matters of fact and national law by the referring court, Articles 184, 185, 187 and 188 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, must be interpreted as not imposing an obligation to adjust value added tax (VAT) on a building which was initially deducted correctly, where that property was the subject of a sale and lease back transaction not subject to VAT in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings.

2. An interpretation of Articles 184, 185, 187 and 188 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2009/162, as imposing an obligation to adjust the value added tax (VAT) initially deducted in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings complies with the principles of VAT neutrality and equal treatment.

(1) OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2019 — Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. v European Commission

(Case C-14/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Article 272 TFEU - Concept of a ‘declaratory action’ - Article 263 TFEU - Concept of an ‘administrative decision’ - Grant agreement concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (2007-2013) - Audit reports finding certain declared costs to be ineligible)

(2019/C 139/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellants: Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and M.M. Farrajota, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the markkinaoikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Oulun Sähkönmyynti Oy

(Case C-294/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy efficiency - Directive 2012/27/EU - Article 11(1) - Cost of access to metering and billing information - Right of final customers to receive all their bills and billing information relating to their energy consumption free of charge - Electricity network charges - Discount on electricity network charges granted by an electricity retail sales company to customers who have chosen electronic billing)

(2019/C 220/15)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Markkinaoikeus

Party to the main proceedings

Oulun Sähkönmyynti Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC must be interpreted as not preluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a discount on electricity network charges granted by an electricity retail sales company exclusively to final customers who have chosen electronic billing.

(1) OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Sopocie Wydział I Cywilny — Poland) — proceedings brought by H. W.

(Case C-214/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Court enforcement officer - Enforcement - Fees laid down by law - Administrative practice of the competent national authorities considering those fees to be inclusive of VAT - Principles of neutrality and proportionality)

(2019/C 206/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Sopocie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H. W.

Other parties: PSM ‘K’, Aleksandra Treder, court enforcement officer at the Sąd Rejonowy w Sopocie

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2013/43/EU of 22 July 2013, and the principles of neutrality of value added tax (VAT) and proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding an administrative practice of the competent national authorities, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the VAT relating to supplies of services by a court enforcement officer in an enforcement procedure is regarded as included in the fees charged by that officer.

(1) OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Vega International Car Transport and Logistic — Trading GmbH v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Case C-235/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(b) - Supply of goods - Exemptions for other activities - Granting and negotiation of credit - Fuel cards)

(2019/C 255/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vega International Car Transport and Logistic — Trading GmbH

Other party to the proceedings: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, the provision of fuel cards by a parent company to its subsidiaries, enabling those subsidiaries to refuel the vehicles they transport, may be classified as a service granting credit which is exempt from value added tax as referred to in that provision.

(1) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.