ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Human Operator Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(C-434/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of VAT - Determination of the taxable person liable for VAT - Retroactive application of a derogating measure - Principle of legal certainty)

(2019/C 131/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Zalaegerszegi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Human Operator Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law precludes national legislation which provides for the application of a measure derogating from Article 193 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, before the EU act authorising that derogation has been notified to the Member State which requested it, despite the fact that that EU act does not mention the date of its entry into force or the date from which it applies, even if that Member State has expressed the wish for that derogation to apply with retroactive effect.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2019 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-225/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Annulment of a listing by the General Court of the European Union - Amendment of the criteria governing inclusion on a list of persons and entities whose assets are to be frozen - Re-listing - Evidence dating from before the first listing - Facts known before the first listing - Force of res judicata - Scope - Legal certainty - Protection of legitimate expectations - Principle Non bis in idem - Effective judicial protection))

(2019/C 112/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Khazar Shipping Lines, IRISL Europe GmbH, Qeshm Marine Services & Engineering Co., Irano Misr Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines, Marine Information Technology Development Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Hoopad Darya Shipping Agency and Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. (represented by: M. Lester QC and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Kneale and M. Bishop, Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and by T. Scharf, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Khazar Shipping Lines, IRISL Europe GmbH, Qeshm Marine Services & Engineering Co., Irano Misr Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines, Marine Information Technology Development Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Hoopad Darya Shipping Agency and Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — M.G. Tjebbes and Others v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

(Case C-221/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the European Union - Article 20 TFUE - Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Nationalities of a Member State and of a third country - Loss of the nationality of a Member State and of citizenship of the Union by operation of law - Consequences - Proportionality)

(2019/C 155/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M.G. Tjebbes, G.J.M. Koopman, E. Saleh Abady, L. Duboux

Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20 TFEU, read in the light of Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides under certain conditions for the loss, by operation of law, of the nationality of that Member State, which entails, in the case of persons who are not also nationals of another Member State, the loss of their citizenship of the Union and the rights attaching thereto, in so far as the competent national authorities, including national courts where appropriate, are in a position to examine, as an ancillary issue, the consequences of the loss of that nationality and, where appropriate, to have the persons concerned recover their nationality ex tunc in the context of an application by those persons for a travel document or any other document showing their nationality. In the context of that examination, the authorities and the courts must determine whether the loss of the nationality of the Member State concerned, when it entails the loss of citizenship of the Union and the rights attaching thereto, has due regard to the principle of proportionality so far as concerns the consequences of that loss for the situation of each person concerned and, if relevant, for that of the members of their family, from the point of view of EU law.

(1) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.
1.

The second subparagraph of Article 5(1) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that there is a network of rail transport services, within the meaning of that provision, where transport services are provided, in application of national legislation transposing Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area, on a railway infrastructure managed by a national authority which allocates infrastructure capacity even if that authority is required to meet the requests of railway undertakings provided that the limits of that capacity are not reached;
1.

Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusion from the application of the public procurement rules that it lays down, covers the care of patients in an emergency situation in a rescue vehicle by an emergency worker/paramedic, covered by CPV [Common Procurement Vocabulary] code 75252000-7 (rescue services) and transport by qualified ambulance, which comprises, in addition to the provision of transport, the care of patients in an ambulance by a paramedic assisted by a medical assistant, covered by CPV code 85143000-3 (ambulance services), provided that, as regards transport by qualified ambulance, it is in fact undertaken by personnel properly trained in first aid and, second, it is provided to a patient whose state of health is at risk of deterioration during that transport.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2019 — European Commission v Alain Laurent Brouillard

(Case C-728/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Recruitment - Competitions - Conditions for admission - Diplomas and level of education required - Open competition EPSO/AD/306/15 - Pre-selection of candidates on the basis of their applications - Level of education corresponding to full legal education completed in a Belgian, French, or Luxembourg higher-education institution - ‘Master 2’ diploma (master’s degree) in law, economics and management, private law, lawyer-linguist specialism - Issued following ‘accreditation of skills gained through experience’ - Rejection of the application)

(2019/C 148/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Mihaylova and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Alain Laurent Brouillard (represented by: H. Brouillard, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — PORR Építési Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-691/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct value added tax (VAT) paid as input tax - Article 199(1)(a) - Reverse charge procedure - Undue payment of the tax by the recipient of services to the suppliers on the basis of an invoice drawn up incorrectly according to the rules on ordinary taxation - Tax authority’s decision holding that the recipient of services has an outstanding tax liability and refusing a claim for deduction - No examination by the tax authority of the possibility of reimbursement of the tax)

(2019/C 206/11)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PORR Építési Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, and the principles of fiscal neutrality and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding a practice of the tax authority whereby, in the absence of any suspicion of tax evasion, that authority refuses an undertaking the right to deduct the value added tax which that undertaking, as the recipient of services, unduly paid to the supplier of those services on the basis of an invoice drawn up by that supplier in accordance with the rules on the ordinary value added tax (VAT) regime, whereas the relevant transaction fell under the reverse charge mechanism, and where the tax authority did not,

— examine, prior to refusing the right to deduct, whether the issuer of that incorrect invoice could reimburse the recipient of the invoice the amount of VAT unduly paid and could correct that invoice under a self-correction procedure, in accordance with the applicable national rules, in order to recover the tax which it unduly paid to the Treasury, or

— itself decide to reimburse the recipient of that invoice the tax which the recipient unduly paid to the issuer of the invoice and that the latter, subsequently, unduly paid to the Treasury.

Those principles require, however, in the situation where the reimbursement by the supplier of services to the recipient of those services of the VAT unduly invoiced would be impossible or excessively difficult, in particular in the case of the insolvency of the supplier, that the recipient of the services must be able to address its application for reimbursement to the tax authorities directly.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Abraxis Bioscience LLC v Comptroller General of Patents

(Case C-443/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal product for human use - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3(d) - Conditions for granting - Grant of first authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product - Authorisation covering a product as a medicinal product constituting a new formulation of a known active ingredient)

(2019/C 187/16)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Abraxis Bioscience LLC

Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(d) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, read in conjunction with Article 1(b) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the marketing authorisation referred to in Article 3(b) of that regulation, relied on in support of an application for a supplementary protection certificate concerning a new formulation of an old active ingredient, cannot be regarded as being the first marketing authorisation for the product concerned as a medicinal product in the case where that active ingredient has already been the subject of a marketing authorisation as an active ingredient.

(1) OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms ‘MSC Flaminia’ v Land Niedersachsen

(Case C-689/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Shipment of waste - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Waste subject to the prior written notification and consent procedure - Shipments within the European Union - Article 1(3)(b) - Exclusion from the regulation’s scope - Waste generated on board ships - Waste on board a ship following damage at sea)

(2019/C 255/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms ‘MSC Flaminia’

Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste must be interpreted as meaning that residues, in the form of scrap metal and of fire-extinguishing water mixed with sludge and cargo residues, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, attributable to damage occurring on board a ship at sea, must be regarded as waste generated on board ships, within the meaning of that provision, which is, therefore, excluded from that regulation’s scope until it is offloaded in order to be recovered or disposed of.

(1) OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Związek Gmin Zagłębia Miedziowego w Polkowicach v Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

(Case C-566/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168(a) - Deduction of input tax - Principle of VAT neutrality - Taxable person engaged in both economic and non-economic activities - Goods and services purchased for the purposes of performing both transactions subject to VAT and non-taxable transactions - Absence of apportionment criteria in national legislation - Principle of lawfulness of the tax)

(2019/C 230/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Związek Gmin Zagłębia Miedziowego w Polkowicach

Defendant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national practice which permits a taxable person to deduct the entirety of the input value added tax (VAT) paid on the purchase of goods and services by that taxable person for the purposes of performing both economic activities, which are subject to VAT, and non-economic activities, which do not come within the scope of VAT, on account of the absence, in the applicable tax legislation, of specific rules on allocation criteria which would allow the taxable person to determine the share of input tax which ought to be deemed to be connected to his economic and non-economic activities respectively.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Baltic Media Alliance Ltd v Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija

(Case C-622/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2010/13/EU - Audiovisual media services - Television broadcasting - Article 3(1) and (2) - Freedom of reception and retransmission - Incitement to hatred on grounds of nationality - Measures taken by the receiving Member State - Temporary obligation for media service providers and other persons providing services relating to the distribution of television channels or programmes via the internet to distribute or retransmit a television channel in the territory of that Member State only in pay-to-view packages)

(2019/C 305/05)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Baltic Media Alliance Ltd

Defendant: Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a public policy measure adopted by a Member State, consisting in an obligation for media service providers whose programmes are directed towards the territory of that Member State and for other persons providing consumers of that Member State with services relating to the distribution of television channels or programmes via the internet to distribute or retransmit in the territory of that Member State, for a period of 12 months, a television channel from another Member State only in pay-to-view packages, without however restricting the retransmission as such in the territory of the first Member State of the television programmes of that channel, is not covered by that provision.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Mohammed Bilali v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

(Case C-720/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum policy - Subsidiary protection - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 19 - Revocation of subsidiary protection status - Error on the part of the administrative authorities with respect to the facts)

(2019/C 263/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohammed Bilali

Defendant: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, read in conjunction with Article 16 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State must revoke subsidiary protection status if it granted that status when the conditions for granting it were not met, in reliance on facts which have subsequently been revealed to be incorrect, and notwithstanding the fact that the person concerned cannot be accused of having misled the Member State on that occasion.

(1) OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Alekszij Torubarov v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-556/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Common procedures for granting international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46(3) - Full and ex nunc examination - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy - Extent of the powers of the first-instance court or tribunal - No power to vary - Refusal by the competent administrative or quasi-judicial body to comply with a decision of that court or tribunal)

(2019/C 319/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alekszij Torubarov

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Operative part of the judgment

Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where a first-instance court or tribunal has found — after making a full and ex nunc examination of all the relevant elements of fact and law submitted by an applicant for international protection — that, under the criteria laid down by Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of the protection granted, that applicant must be granted such protection on the ground that he or she relied on in support of his or her application, but after which the administrative or quasi-judicial body adopts a contrary decision without establishing that new elements have arisen that justify a new assessment of the international protection needs of the applicant, that court or tribunal must vary that decision which does not comply with its previous judgment and substitute its own decision for it as to the application for international protection, disapplying as necessary the national law that would prohibit it from proceeding in that way.

(1) OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Infrastrutture e telecomunicazioni per l’Italia SpA (Infratel Italia SpA)

(Case C-697/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Award of public supply and public works contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 28(2) - Restricted procedure - Economic operators admitted to submit a tender - Need for the pre-selected candidate and the candidate submitting the tender to be legally and factually identical - Principle of equal treatment of tenderers)

(2019/C 305/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Infrastrutture e telecomunicazioni per l’Italia SpA (Infratel Italia SpA)

Intervener: OpEn Fiber SpA

Operative part of the judgment

The first sentence of Article 28(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted, with regard to the requirement that the pre-selected operators and the operators submitting tenders be legally and factually identical, as not precluding, in the context of a restricted procedure for the award of a public procurement contract, a pre-selected candidate who agrees to merge with another pre-selected candidate under a merger agreement concluded between the pre-selection stage and the stage when tenders are submitted and performed after that submission stage from submitting a tender.

(1) OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.