ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 17(2)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the transfer, by a taxable person, of goods from a Member State to the Member State of refund, for the purposes of the supply by that taxable person of services for the hiring out of those goods in the latter Member State, shall not be treated as an intra-community supply where the use of those goods for the purposes of such a supply is temporary and they have been dispatched or transported from the Member State in which that taxable person is established.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA ‘Soho Group’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

(Case C-686/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ - Costs for extending the credit)

(2020/C 297/25)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘Soho Group’

Defendant: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of the ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, contained in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that that concept includes the costs for any extension of the credit, provided that, first, the actual and precise conditions for its possible extension, including the duration of that extension, form part of the terms and conditions agreed between the creditor and the borrower in the credit agreement and, second, those costs are known to the creditor.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
2.

Since a fixed-term or indefinite contract providing for periodic payments at pre-determined intervals, such as the monthly rent relating to a lease or rental agreement for business premises, falls within the material scope of Directive 2011/7 as a commercial transaction leading to the provision of services for remuneration, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that directive, Article 5 of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that in order for such a contract to give rise, in the event of payment which is not regulated by a payment schedule, to the rights to interest and compensation provided for in Article 3 and Article 6 of that directive, it must not necessarily be considered to be an agreement on a payment schedule providing for instalments, within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — JP v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-651/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Action brought against a subsequent application for international protection as being inadmissible - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Rules governing notification)

(2020/C 378/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JP

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Operative part of the judgment

Article 46 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 the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that proceedings challenging a decision declaring a subsequent application for international protection to be inadmissible are subject to a limitation period of 10 days, including public holidays, as from the date of service of such decision, even where, when the applicant concerned has not specified an address for service in that Member State, that service is made at the head office of the national authority responsible for the examination of those applications, provided that (i) those applicants are informed that, where they have not specified an address for service for the purposes of notification of the decision concerning their application, they will be deemed to have specified an address for service for those purposes at the head office of that national authority; (ii) the conditions for access of those applicants to that head office do not render receipt by those applicants of the decisions concerning them excessively difficult, (iii) genuine access to the procedural safeguards granted to applicants for international protection by EU law is ensured within such a period, and (iv) the principle of equivalence is respected. It is for the referring court to determine whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings meets those requirements.

(1) OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
2.

When a plan or project has, pursuant to Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43, received a negative assessment of its impact on a special area of conservation and the Member State concerned has nevertheless decided, under Article 6(4), to carry out that project for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, Article 6 of that directive must be interpreted as precluding national legislation allowing that plan or project, after its negative assessment under Article 6(3) and before its final adoption pursuant to Article 6(4), to be supplemented by measures mitigating its impact on that area and for the assessment of its impact on that area to continue. By contrast, Article 6 of Directive 92/43 does not preclude, in the same situation, national legislation allowing compensatory measures in the context of the same decision to be defined, provided that the other conditions for implementing Article 6(4) of that directive are also fulfilled.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Bena Properties Co. SA v Council of the European Union

(Case C-260/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant's name - Action for annulment)

(2020/C 399/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bena Properties Co. SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Bena Properties Co. SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — XT v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-312/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Article 9(1) - Article 193 - Concept of ‘taxable person’ - Joint activity agreement - Partnership - Allocation of an economic transaction to one of the partners - Determination of the taxable person liable for the tax)

(2020/C 390/11)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XT

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) and Article 193 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who has concluded with another natural person a joint activity agreement setting up a partnership, which lacks legal personality and is characterised by the fact that the first person is empowered to act in the name of the partners as a whole, but participates alone and in his or her own name in relations with third parties when performing acts that form the economic activity pursued by that partnership, must be regarded as a ‘taxable person’ within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112 and as having sole liability for the value added tax payable under Article 193 of that directive, since he or she acts on his or her own behalf or on behalf of another person as a commission agent as provided for in Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 of that directive.

(1) OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.
1.

Article 7(2) and Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that a national of another Member State and his minor children, all of whom have, in the former Member State, a right of residence based on Article 10 of that regulation, by virtue of those children attending school in that State, are automatically and in all circumstances excluded from entitlement to benefits to cover their subsistence costs. That interpretation is not called into question by Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 — Drex Technologies SA v Council of the European Union

(Case C-348/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against certain persons and entities operating in Syria - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name - Action for annulment)

(2020/C 399/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Drex Technologies SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Drex Technologies SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Lithuania) — ‘Linas Agro’ AB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-117/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014 - Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight - Definition - Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 - Determination of the ammonium nitrate content - Presumption that a product with a nitrogen content exceeding 28 % by weight has an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight)

(2020/C 423/08)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Linas Agro’ AB

Defendant: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014 of 23 September 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, read in the light of recitals 20 to 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, must be interpreted as meaning that an ammonium nitrate (AN) fertiliser with a nitrogen (N) content exceeding 28 % by weight, a ratio between nitric nitrogen and ammoniacal nitrogen of approximately 1:1 and an overall phosphorus and potassium content not exceeding 12 % by weight may be presumed, until proof to the contrary is provided, to have an ammonium nitrate (AN) content of more than 80 % by weight for the purpose of imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty which that article lays down, without it being necessary to carry out laboratory testing in order to determine the precise ammonium nitrate content.

(1) OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — MO v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

(Case C-568/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 6(1) and Article 8(1) - Illegal stay - National legislation providing for either a fine or removal, depending on the circumstances - Consequences of the judgment of 23 April 2015, Zaizoune (C-38/14, EU:C:2015:260) - National legislation more favourable to the interested party - Direct effect of directives - Limits)

(2020/C 414/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MO

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that, where national legislation makes provision, in the event of a third-country national staying illegally in the territory of a Member State, for either a fine or removal, and the latter measure may be adopted only if there are aggravating circumstances concerning that national, additional to his or her illegal stay, the competent national authority may not rely directly on the provisions of that directive in order to adopt a return decision and to enforce that decision, even in the absence of such aggravating circumstances.

(1) OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
1.

Article 52(6)(a) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC, read in conjunction with Article 54(1) thereof, must be interpreted to the effect that it governs the information and conditions to be provided by a payment service provider wishing to agree, with a user of its services, on tacit consent with regard to changes, in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in those provisions, of the framework contract that they have concluded, but does not lay down restrictions regarding the status of the user or the type of contractual terms that may be the subject of such tacit consent, without prejudice, however, where the user is a consumer, to a possible review of the unfairness of those terms in the light of the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts;
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen — Germany) — Marvin M. v Kreis Heinsberg

(Case C-112/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/126/EC - Article 2(1) and Article 11(4) - Driving licence - Mutual recognition - Extent of the obligation to recognise - Driving licence having been the subject of an exchange - Exchange made at a time when the right to drive had been withdrawn by the issuing Member State - Fraud - Refusal to recognise the driving licence issued in the context of the exchange)

(2020/C 433/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Aachen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marvin M.

Defendant: Kreis Heinsberg

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that mutual recognition, without any formality, which it lays down, is applicable to a driving licence issued following an exchange under Article 11(1) of that directive, subject to the exceptions provided for by that directive;

2. The second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126 must be interpreted as meaning that it allows a Member State to refuse to recognise a driving licence which was the subject of an exchange pursuant to Article 11(1) of that directive, on the ground that that Member State had, prior to that exchange, withdrawn the authorisation to drive from the holder of that driving licence.

(1) OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.
4.

Article 9(2)(e) in conjunction with Article 9(3) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a connection between the reasons mentioned in Article 2(d) and Article 10 of that directive and the prosecution and punishment for refusal to perform the military service referred to in Article 9(2)(e) of that directive cannot be regarded as established solely because that prosecution and punishment are connected to that refusal. Nevertheless, there is a strong presumption that refusal to perform military service under the conditions set out in Article 9(2)(e) of that directive relates to one of the five reasons set out in Article 10 thereof. It is for the competent national authorities to ascertain, in the light of all the circumstances at issue, whether that connection is plausible.
1.

Articles 167, 168, 184 and 185 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT) on goods, in the present case on immoveable property, and on services purchased in order to carry out taxed transactions is retained where the investment projects initially planned were abandoned due to circumstances beyond the control of the taxable person and that it is not necessary for that VAT to be adjusted if the taxable person still intends to use those goods for the purposes of a taxed activity.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 December 2020 — Comune di Milano v European Commission

(Case C-160/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Air transport sector - Groundhandling services at Milan-Linate (Italy) and Milan-Malpensa (Italy) airports - Capital injections made by the operator of those airports into its wholly owned subsidiary providing those services - Public shareholding of the operator - Decision declaring those State aid measures unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concepts of ‘State resources’, ‘measure imputable to the State’ and ‘economic advantage’ - Private operator principle - Private investor test - Burden of proof - Complex financial assessments - Intensity of judicial review - Distortion of the evidence)

(2021/C 44/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Comune di Milano (represented by: A. Mandarano, E. Barbagiovanni, S. Grassani and L. Picciano, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, G. Conte and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Comune di Milano to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
3.

Article 56 TFEU, Article 3(2) and (4) of Directive 2000/31 and Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as not applying to a dispute where all the relevant elements are confined to a single Member State. Article 4 of Directive 2000/31 must be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State which makes the provision of an intermediary service — the purpose of which is to put persons wishing to be transported around the city in touch, by means of a smartphone application, with authorised taxi drivers in exchange for payment, and which is classified as an ‘information society service’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31, which refers to Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2015/1535 — subject to obtaining prior approval to which other providers of taxi booking services are already subject. Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the provision of an intermediary service — the purpose of which is to put persons wishing to be transported around the city in touch, by means of a smartphone application, with authorised taxi drivers in exchange for payment — subject to obtaining prior approval to carry out that activity, where the conditions for obtaining that approval do not meet the requirements laid down in those articles, in that they impose, inter alia, technical requirements that are inappropriate for the service in question, which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravni sud u Zagrebu — Croatia) — FRANCK d.d. Zagreb v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

(Case C-801/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(b) and (d) - Definitions of ‘granting of credit’ and ‘other negotiable instruments’ - Complex transactions - Principal supply - Provision of funds in return for payment - Transfer of a bill of exchange to a factoring company and the money obtained to the issuer of the bill of exchange)

(2021/C 62/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Upravni sud u Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FRANCK d.d. Zagreb

Defendant: Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(b) and (d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (VAT Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax on granting credit and transactions concerning other negotiable instruments laid down by those provisions, applies to a transaction which consists in the making available of funds obtained from a factoring company by one taxable person to another taxable person, for remuneration, following the transmission to the latter of a bill of exchange issued by the second taxable person, the first taxable person guaranteeing the repayment to the factoring company of that bill of exchange at its maturity.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.