ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Directive 2006/112, and in particular Article 28 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a bilateral promise for the sale of immovable property not registered in the national land register, the future purchaser — a taxable person — who, as he or she contractually undertook to do with regard to the future vendor in that promise, carries out the necessary steps for the first registration of the property concerned in that register by having recourse to the services provided by third parties who are taxable persons, is deemed to have supplied the services in question himself or herself to the future vendor, within the meaning of Article 28, even though the parties to the contract agreed that the sale price of that property does not include the value of the land-registration operations.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Engie Cartagena SL v Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica, formerly Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo

(Case C-523/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in electricity - Common rules - Directive 2003/54/EC - Article 3(2) - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 3(2) - Public service obligations - Meaning - National rules - Financing of energy efficiency plans - Designation of electricity generating undertakings - Mandatory contribution)

(2020/C 61/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Engie Cartagena SL

Defendant: Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica, formerly Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo

Interveners in support of the defendant: Endesa Generación, SA, EDP España SAU, Bizkaia Energía, SL, Iberdrola Generación SAU, Tarragona Power SL, Bahia de Bizkaia Electricidad SL, Viesgo Generación SL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as meaning that a financial contribution imposed on certain electricity generating undertakings for the purpose of financing savings and energy efficiency plans managed by a public authority does not constitute a public service obligation falling within that provision.

(1) OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Palermo (Italy) — Autoservizi Giordano società cooperativa v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio di Palermo

(Case C-513/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Article 7(2) and (3) - Concept of ‘commercial gas oil used as propellant’ - National legislation levying a duty on commercial gas oil used as propellant for the regular carriage of passengers but not for the occasional carriage of passengers - Principle of equal treatment)

(2020/C 137/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Palermo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autoservizi Giordano società cooperativa

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio di Palermo

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) and (3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning, first, that a private undertaking engaged in the activity of the carriage of passengers, by means of services of hiring a bus or a coach with a driver, falls within its scope, provided that the vehicles hired out by that undertaking are in category M2 or M3, within the meaning of Directive 70/156/EEC, and, second, that it does not preclude national legislation which provides for a reduced rate of excise duty for commercial gas oil used as propellant for the regular carriage of passengers, without, however, providing for such a rate for that used for the occasional carriage of passengers, provided that that legislation observes the principle of equal treatment, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Anton van Zantbeek VOF v Ministerraad

(Case C-725/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Freedom to provide services - Tax on stock exchange transactions concluded or executed in a Member State - Difference in treatment to the detriment of recipients of services using non-resident professional intermediaries - Restriction - Justification)

(2020/C 137/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anton van Zantbeek VOF

Defendant: Ministerraad

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State which introduces a tax on stock exchange transactions concluded or executed on the order of a resident of that Member State by a non-resident professional intermediary, resulting in a restriction on the freedom to provide services provided by such professional intermediaries, in so far as that legislation offers such an issuer of an order and such professional intermediaries options, both as regards the declaration obligations connected with that tax and its payment, which limit that restriction to that which is necessary to attain the legitimate objectives pursued by that legislation.

(1) OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.
1.

Article 132(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 the competent authorities in a Member State may — for the purpose of determining whether the care services provided by a private hospital, which are in the public interest, are provided under social conditions comparable to those applicable to bodies governed by public law, within the meaning of that provision — take into account the fact that those services are provided under contracts concluded with public authorities of that Member State, at prices fixed by those contracts and whose costs are partially borne by the social security institutions of that Member State;
1.

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from rejecting an application for family reunification submitted by the spouse, who is a third-country national, of a Union citizen who holds the nationality of that Member State and who has never exercised the freedom of movement, on the sole ground that that Union citizen does not have, for him or herself and his or her spouse, sufficient resources not to become a burden on the national social assistance system, without it having been examined whether there is a relationship of dependency between that Union citizen and his or her spouse of such a kind that, if the latter were refused a derived right of residence, that Union citizen would be obliged to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole and would thus be deprived of the effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by his or her status;
2.

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier may not rely, for the purposes of being released from its obligation to pay compensation, on ‘extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision, arising from the failure of a so-called ‘on condition’ part, that is to say, a part which is replaced only when it becomes defective, even though it permanently stocks a spare part, except where such a failure constitutes an event which, by its nature or origin, is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is outside its actual control, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, it being considered, however, that, in so far as that failure is, in principle, intrinsically linked to the operating system of the aircraft, it must not be regarded as such an event.
1.

On a proper construction of Article 3(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation No 163/67/EEC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 248/2010 of 24 March 2010, the fact that goods imported into the European Union have been sold at a loss, that is, at a lower price than the CIF import price as set out in the customs declaration, is not in itself sufficient grounds for a finding that the correctness of the CIF import price has not been proved where the importer proves that all the conditions under which the consignment of those goods took place confirm that that price is correct.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — WN v Land Niedersachsen

(Case C-710/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45(1) TFEU - Remuneration - Step allocation in a remuneration system - Remuneration system linking entitlement to a higher remuneration rate to length of service with the same employer - Limitation of the account to be taken of previous periods of relevant activity with an employer in a Member State other than the Member State of origin)

(2020/C 230/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WN

Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that, for the purpose of determining the remuneration rate of a person working as a school teacher with a local authority, takes into account that person’s previous periods of activity with an employer, other than that local authority, situated in other Member State, only up to a maximum of three years in total, when that activity is equivalent to that which that person is to perform in the context of his or her school teaching duties.

(1) OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Stadtwerke Neuwied GmbH v RI

(Case C-765/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/55/EC - Common rules for the internal market in natural gas - Consumer protection - Article 3(3) and point (b) of Annex A - Transparency of contractual terms and conditions - Obligation to give consumers adequate notice directly of an increase in charges)

(2020/C 222/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stadtwerke Neuwied GmbH

Defendant: RI

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, read in conjunction with points (b) and (c) of Annex A thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that, where tariff changes which have not been personally notified to customers are implemented by a gas supplier of last resort with the sole aim of passing on the increase in the cost of acquisition of natural gas without any profit being sought, it is not a condition for the validity of the tariff changes in question that that supplier fulfil the obligations of transparency and information referred to in those provisions, provided that the customers are able to terminate the contract at any time and have the appropriate remedies available to obtain compensation for damage that may have been incurred as a result of the failure to notify the changes personally.

(1) OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.
2.

Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy must be interpreted as precluding a situation where it is only after a project has been approved that the competent authority carries out the checks to establish whether the requirements laid down in that framework have been met, including the requirement to prevent the deterioration in the status of bodies of water, both surface water and groundwater, which are affected by the project. Article 6 of Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the information to be made available to the public during the procedure for approving a project must include the data that is necessary in order to assess the effects of that project on the water, in the light of the criteria and requirements laid down in, inter alia, Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/60.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — A v B

(Case C-772/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5(1) - Article 5(3)(b)and (c) - Infringement - Concept of ‘use in the course of trade’ - Goods released for free circulation - Imports - Storage - Retention of goods for marketing - Exports)

(2020/C 240/16)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: B

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, read in conjunction with Article 5(3)(b) and (c) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a person who does not engage in trade as an occupation, who takes delivery of, releases for free circulation in a Member State and retains goods that are manifestly not intended for private use, where those goods were sent to his or her address from a third country and where a trade mark, without the consent of the proprietor of that trade mark, is affixed to those goods, must be regarded as using that trade mark in the course of trade, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara — Romania) — SC Terracult SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Arad — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Juridice 5, ANAF Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara Serviciul de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor

(Case C-835/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Invoice correction - Tax invoiced incorrectly - Refund of tax paid but not due - Reverse charge mechanism for VAT - Transactions relating to a tax period that has already been the subject of a tax inspection - Fiscal neutrality - Principle of effectiveness - Proportionality)

(2020/C 279/08)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timişoara

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Terracult SRL

Defendants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Arad — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Juridice 5, ANAF Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara Serviciul de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system for value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2013/43/EU of 22 July 2013, and the principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or a national administrative practice preventing a taxable person that has carried out transactions which subsequently proved to be covered by the reverse charge mechanism for value added tax (VAT) from correcting the invoices relating to those transactions and relying on them by correcting an earlier tax return or submitting a new tax return taking account of the correction thus made, with a view to obtaining a refund of the VAT improperly invoiced and paid by that taxable person, on the ground that the period in respect of which those transactions were carried out had already been the subject of a tax inspection at the end of which the competent tax authority had issued a tax assessment which, not having been contested by that taxable person, had become final.

(1) OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Bolton Cile España, SA

(Case C-702/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application for EU figurative mark PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz - Earlier national trade mark PRIMA - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 76(1) - Scope of review by the General Court of the European Union)

(2020/C 271/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz (represented by: J. Skołuda, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Bolton Cile España, SA (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 September 2018, Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz) (T-584/17, not published, EU:T:2018:530);

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 September 2018, Czech Republic v Commission (T-627/16, not published, EU:T:2018:538), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court rejected the plea in law concerning the one-off correction of EUR 462 517,83 in respect of the financial years 2013 to 2015, to the extent to which it concerns the ground relating to deficiencies in the risk analysis, and the plea in law concerning a flat-rate correction of EUR 636 516,20, in respect of the financial years 2011 to 2014, to the extent to which it concerns the ground relating to insufficient on-the-spot checks so far as investments financed in the wine sector are concerned;
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — AFMB Ltd and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

(Case C-610/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Legislation applicable - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(a) - Concept of ‘person who is a member of the travelling personnel of an undertaking’ - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 13(1)(b) - Concept of ‘employer’ - Long-distance lorry drivers normally employed in one or more Member States or States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) - Long distance lorry drivers who have entered into an employment contract with one undertaking but are in fact subject to the authority of another undertaking established in the Member State where those drivers reside - Determination of which undertaking is the ‘employer’)

(2020/C 297/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AFMB Ltd and Others

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, and Article 13(1)(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that the employer of an international long-distance lorry driver, for the purposes of those provisions, is the undertaking which has actual authority over that long-distance lorry driver, which bears, in reality, the costs of paying his or her wages, and which has the actual power to dismiss him or her, and not the undertaking with which that long-distance lorry driver has concluded an employment contract and which is formally named in that contract as being the employer of that driver.

(1) OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2020 — Deza, a.s. v European Commission, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden, European Chemicals Agency

(Case C-813/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures - Regulation (EU) 2017/776 - Classification of anthraquinone - Substance suspected to have carcinogenic potential for humans - Errors of interpretation and application of Regulation 1272/2008 and the principle of legal certainty - Distortion of the facts and of the evidence - Scope of review)

(2020/C 423/06)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Deza, a.s. (represented by: P. Dejl, advokát)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal, K. Mifsud-Bonnici and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by: H. Eklinder, H. Shev, C. Meyer-Seitz, J. Lundberg and A. Falk and subsequently by: H. Eklinder, H. Shev and C. Meyer-Seitz, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: A. Hautamäki and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Deza a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.