ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark — Masco Denmark ApS, Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-593/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation concerning thin capitalisation of subsidiaries - Inclusion in the taxable income of a lending company of the loan interest paid by a non-resident borrowing subsidiary - Tax exemption for interest paid by a resident borrowing subsidiary - Balanced allocation between Member States of the power to impose taxes - Need to prevent the risk of tax avoidance))

(2017/C 053/04)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Masco Denmark ApS, Damixa ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a resident company a tax exemption for interest paid by a resident subsidiary, in so far as that subsidiary is not entitled to a tax deduction for the corresponding interest expenditure by reason of the rules limiting the deduction of interest paid in cases of thin capitalisation, but which excludes the exemption that would result from the application of its own thin-capitalisation legislation in the case where the subsidiary is resident in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varbergs tingsrätt — Sweden) — P v Q

(Case C-455/15 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 23(a) - Grounds of non-recognition of judgments in matters of parental responsibility - Public policy))

(2016/C 016/15)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Varbergs tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P

Defendant: Q

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a manifest breach, having regard to the best interests of the child, of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of a Member State or of a right recognised as being fundamental within that legal order, that provision does not allow a court of that Member State which considers that it has jurisdiction to rule on the custody of a child to refuse to recognise a judgment of a court of another Member State which has ruled on the custody of that child.

(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/13

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Aspiro SA, formerly BRE Ubezpieczenia sp. z o.o.

(Case C-40/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(a) - Exemption for insurance - Definition of ‘insurance’ transactions and of ‘related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents’ - Claims settlement services provided by and on behalf of an insurer))

(2016/C 156/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Aspiro SA, formerly BRE Ubezpieczenia sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(a) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that claims settlement services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, provided by a third party in the name and on behalf of an insurance company, do not fall within the exemption laid down by that provision.

(1) OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
1.

Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the movement of excise goods under a duty suspension arrangement ends, for the purpose of that provision, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, when the consignee of those goods has found, on unloading in full from the means of transport carrying the goods in question, that there were shortages of the goods in comparison with the amount which should have been delivered to him.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/10

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — ZS ‘Ezernieki’ v Lauku atbalsta dienests

(Case C-273/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - Regulations (EC) Nos 1257/1999 and 817/2004 - Support for rural development - Recovery of undue payments - Increase of the area declared during the five-year commitment period above the threshold provided for - Replacement of the original commitment by a new commitment - Non-compliance by the beneficiary with the obligation to submit an annual application for payment of aid - National legislation requiring the repayment of all aid paid over several years - Principle of proportionality - Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))

(2016/C 260/13)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZS ‘Ezernieki’

Defendant: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Article 71(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), must, in the light of the objective of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1783/2003 of 29 September 2003, and of Regulation No 817/2004, in the light of the principle of proportionality and Articles 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in accordance with which the beneficiary of aid granted in return for agri-environmental commitments covering several years is required to repay all of the aid already received, on the ground that he did not submit an annual application for payment of that aid for the last year of the five-year period of his commitments, where, first, that five-year period replaced an earlier period as a result of an increase in the area of his holding and, secondly, that beneficiary did not cease to fulfil his obligations relating to the use of the area declared prior to that increase.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — AK (*1) v Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand

(Case C-5/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Free choice of lawyer for an insured person - Inquiry or proceedings - Definition - Objection to refusal of authorisation for care))

(2016/C 211/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AK (*1)

Defendants: Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘inquiry’ referred to in that provision covers the stage of an objection before a public body during which that body gives a decision against which an action may be brought before the courts.

(*1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1) OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/10

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Törvényszék — Hungary) — proceedings against István Balogh

(Case C-25/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Right to interpretation and translation - Directive 2010/64/EU - Scope - Definition of criminal proceedings - Procedure laid down by a Member State for the recognition of a decision in criminal proceedings handed down by a court in another Member State and for the entry in the criminal record of the conviction handed down by that court - Costs in connection with the translation of that decision - Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA - Decision 2009/316/JHA))

(2016/C 296/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Törvényszék

Party to the main proceedings

István Balogh

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to a national special procedure for the recognition by the court of a Member State of a final judicial decision handed down by a court of another Member State convicting a person for the commission of an offence.

Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States and Council Decision 2009/316/JHA of 6 April 2009 on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) in application of Article 11 of Framework Decision 2009/315 must be interpreted as precluding the implementation of national legislation establishing such a special procedure.

(1) OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
2.

Article 24 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of agricultural engineering works, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes a supply of services for consideration, on the ground that the services rendered are directly linked to the fee received or to be received, provided that that modest fee constitutes remuneration for the service supplied and notwithstanding the fact that performance of those services is a legal obligation. It is for the referring court to determine whether the amount of the fee received or to be received, qua consideration, means that there exists a direct link between the services supplied or to be supplied and that consideration, and consequently allows those services to be classified as being effected for consideration. In particular, the referring court will have to ascertain that the fee which the applicants in the main proceedings are planning to charge does not only partly remunerate the services supplied or to be supplied and that its amount has not been determined as a result of other possible factors that could, depending on the circumstances, call into question the direct link between the services supplied and the consideration.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/25

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — Ivo Muladi v Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje

(Case C-447/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Directive 2003/59/EC - Obligation to obtain an initial qualification - Article 4 - Acquired rights - Holders of driving licences issued before the dates laid down in Article 4 - Exemption from the obligation to obtain an initial qualification - National legislation setting an additional requirement for periodic training of 35 hours duration in order to benefit from that exemption))

(2016/C 335/33)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ivo Muladi

Defendant: Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of Directive 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repealing Council Directive 76/914/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, before the driving activity in question may be carried out, periodic training of 35 hours duration has to be completed by persons who are exempted, under Article 4, from the requirement that drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers obtain an initial qualification.

(1) OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Odvolací finanční ředitelství v Český rozhlas

(Case C-11/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth Directive 77/388/EC - Value added tax - Article 2(1) - Supply of services effected for consideration - Definition - Public broadcasting - Financing from a compulsory statutory fee))

(2016/C 314/04)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Defendant: Český rozhlas

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that public broadcasting activities, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, funded by a compulsory statutory charge paid by owners or possessors of a radio receiver and carried out by a radio broadcasting company created by law, do not constitute a supply of services ‘effected for consideration’ within the meaning of that provision and therefore fall outside the scope of that directive.

(1) OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.
1)

Declares that, by failing to adopt appropriate measures to prevent dust rising from the Boșneag pond — extension, Romania failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 and Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/25

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Wiener Neustadt — Austria) — Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG v Balmatic Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Others

(Case C-464/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Games of chance - Legislation of a Member State prohibiting, on pain of criminal penalties, the operation of low-prize gaming machines (‘kleines Glücksspiel’) where no licence has been granted by the competent authority - Restriction - Justification - Proportionality - Assessment of proportionality on the basis of both the objective of the legislation at the time of its adoption and its effects when implemented - Effects empirically and definitely determined))

(2016/C 335/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Wiener Neustadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG

Defendants: Balmatic Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Robert Schnitzer, Suayip Polat KG, Ülkü Polat, Attila Juhas, Milazim Rexha

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a review of the proportionality of restrictive national legislation in the area of games of chance must be based not only on the objective of that legislation at the time of its adoption, but also on the effects of the legislation, assessed after its adoption.

(1) OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/11

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber Chamber) of 8 September 2016 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. v Council of the European Union

(Case C-459/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Logistical support to the Iranian Government - Inclusion of the appellant’s name))

(2016/C 402/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/10

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Astone

(Case C-332/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168, 178 to 182, 193, 206, 242, 244, 250, 252 and 273 - Right to deduct VAT - Substantive requirements - Formal requirements - Limitation period - National provisions excluding the right to deduct where there is a failure to comply with most of the formal requirements - Tax evasion))

(2016/C 350/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Treviso

Party in the main proceedings

Giuseppe Astone

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 167, 168, 178, the first paragraph of Article 179, and Articles 180 and 182 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation which provides for a limitation period for exercising the right to deduct, such as the limitation period at issue in the main proceedings, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

2. Articles 168, 178, 179, 193, 206, 242, 244, 250, 252 and 273 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows the tax authorities to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax when it is established that that person has fraudulently failed to fulfil most of the formal obligations incumbent upon him in order to be able to benefit from that right, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.
1.

Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 13 of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing a dispute concerning the legality of a tariff obligation imposed by the national regulatory authority for the provision of fixed and mobile call termination services, may depart from Commission Recommendation 2009/396/EC of 7 May 2009 on the regulatory treatment of fixed and mobile termination rates in the EU advocating the ‘pure Bulric’ (Bottom-Up Long-Run Incremental Costs) cost model as the appropriate price regulation measure in the termination market only where it considers that this is required on grounds related to the facts of the individual case, in particular the specific characteristics of the market of the Member State in question.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/16

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-139/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Cohesion Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Procedure of adoption of the decision by the European Commission - Existence of a time limit - Non-compliance with the time limit laid down - Consequences))

(2016/C 419/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

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

(1) OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija — Latvia) — Criminal proceedings against Aleksandrs Ranks, Jurijs Vasiļevičs

(Case C-166/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 91/250/EEC - Article 4(a) and (c) - Article 5(1) and (2) - Directive 2009/24/EC - Article 4(1) and (2) - Article 5(1) and (2) - Legal protection of computer programs - Resale of ‘used’ licensed copies of computer programs on non-original material media - Exhaustion of the distribution right - Exclusive right of reproduction))

(2016/C 462/04)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija

Parties in the main proceedings

Aleksandrs Ranks, Jurijs Vasiļevičs

The other parties to the proceedings: Finanšu un ekonomisko noziegumu izmeklēšanas prokoratūra, Microsoft Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(a) and (c) and Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that, although the initial acquirer of a copy of a computer program accompanied by an unlimited user licence is entitled to resell that copy and his licence to a new acquirer, he may not, however, in the case where the original material medium of the copy that was initially delivered to him has been damaged, destroyed or lost, provide his back-up copy of that program to that new acquirer without the authorisation of the rightholder.

(1) OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
1)

Declares that, by failing to create a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and by failing therefore to establish the interconnection with the electronic registers of other Member States, the Portuguese Republic has failed in its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC.