ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — Netherlands Maritime Technology Association v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-100/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Spanish scheme of early depreciation of certain assets acquired through financial leasing - Decision finding no State aid - Formal investigation procedure not initiated - Insufficient and incomplete examination - Obligation to state reasons - Selectivity))

(2016/C 211/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Netherlands Maritime Technology Association (represented by: K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt, and G. Forwood, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P. Němečková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Netherlands Maritime Technology Association to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
2.

Article 184 et seq. of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required to apply the rounding-up rule laid down in Article 175(1) of that directive in the event of adjustment where, under their national legislation, the deductible proportion has been calculated in accordance with one of the methods set out in Article 173(2) of that directive or in the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of the 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, only where that rule was applied to determine the initial amount of the deduction.
2.

The principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency must be interpreted as precluding an economic operator from being excluded from a procedure for the award of a public contract as a result of that economic operator’s non-compliance with an obligation which does not expressly arise from the documents relating to that procedure or out of the national law in force, but from an interpretation of that law and those documents and from the incorporation of provisions into those documents by the national authorities or administrative courts. Accordingly, the principles of equal treatment and of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding an economic operator from being allowed to regularise its position and comply with that obligation within a period of time set by the contracting authority.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/12

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Emmanuel Lebek v Janusz Domino

(Case C-70/15) (1)

((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 34(2) - Defendant not entering an appearance - Recognition and enforcement of judgments - Grounds for refusing enforcement - Document instituting proceedings not served on the defendant in sufficient time - Concept of ‘proceedings to challenge a judgment’ - Application for relief - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Article 19(4) - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Period within which an application for relief may be submitted))

(2016/C 335/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Emmanuel Lebek

Respondent: Janusz Domino

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of ‘proceedings to challenge a judgment’ referred to in Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as also including applications for relief when the period for bringing an ordinary challenge has expired.

2. The last subparagraph of Article 19(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as excluding the application of provisions of national law concerning the system of applying for relief where the period for filing such applications, as specified in the communication of a Member State to which that provision refers, has expired.

(1) OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/6

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente Woerden v Staatsecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-267/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Input tax - Deduction))

(2016/C 314/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gemeente Woerden

Defendant: Staatsecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which a taxable person has had a building constructed and has sold that building for a price less than the cost of constructing it, that taxable person is entitled to deduct all of the value added tax paid in respect of the construction of that building, and not only a part of that tax in proportion to the parts of the building which its purchaser uses for economic activities. The fact that that purchaser allows the building at issue to be used without charge is of no importance in that regard.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Argos Supply Trading BV

(Case C-4/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Customs procedures with economic impact - Outward processing - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 148(c) - Issue of authorisation - Economic conditions - Absence of serious harm to the essential interests of Community processors - Concept of ‘Community processors’))

(2016/C 343/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Argos Supply Trading BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 148(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a request for authorisation to use the outward processing procedure, in order to assess whether the economic conditions governing the use of that procedure are satisfied, it is necessary to take account not only of the essential interests of Community producers of products analogous to the finished product resulting from the envisaged processing operations, but also of those of Community producers of products analogous to the basic products or to the intermediate non-EU products intended to be incorporated in the Community goods temporarily exported during those operations.

(1) OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/10

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Brisal — Auto Estradas do Litoral SA, KBC Finance Ireland v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-18/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Taxation of interest received - Difference in treatment between resident financial institutions and non-resident financial institutions))

(2016/C 335/12)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Brisal — Auto Estradas do Litoral SA, KBC Finance Ireland

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 EC does not preclude national legislation under which a procedure for withholding tax at source is applied to the income of financial institutions that are not resident in the Member State in which the services are provided, whereas the income received by financial institutions that are resident in that Member State is not subject to such withholding tax, provided that the application of the withholding tax to the non-resident financial institutions is justified by an overriding reason in the general interest and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued.

Article 49 EC precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, as a general rule, taxes non-resident financial institutions on the interest income received within the Member State concerned without giving them the opportunity to deduct business expenses directly related to the activity in question, whereas such an opportunity is given to resident financial institutions.

It is for the national court to assess, on the basis of its national law, which business expenses may be regarded as being directly related to the activity in question.

(1) OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/11

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-461/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Harmonised free allocation of emission allowances - Decision 2011/278/EU - Change to the allocation - Article 24(1) - Obligation of the operator of the installation to provide information - Scope))

(2016/C 402/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24(1) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from requiring undertakings which, being subject to the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading obligation within the European Union, receive a free allocation of those allowances to provide information relating to all planned or effective changes to the capacity, activity level and operation of an installation, without limiting that requirement solely to information relating to changes that would affect the allocation.

(1) OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
1.

A national court may, when this is allowed by domestic law, exceptionally and case by case, limit in time certain effects of a declaration of the illegality of a provision of national law adopted in disregard of the obligations provided for by Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, in particular the obligations arising from Article 6(3) of the directive, provided that such a limitation is dictated by an overriding consideration linked to environmental protection and having regard to the specific circumstances of the case pending before it. That exceptional power may, however, be exercised only if all the conditions flowing from the judgment of 28 February 2012 in Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre wallonne (C-41/11, EU:C:2012:103) are satisfied, namely; — the contested provision of national law constitutes a measure correctly transposing EU law on environmental protection; — that the adoption and coming into force of a new provision of national law do not make it possible to avoid the damaging effects on the environment arising from annulment of the contested provision of national law; — that annulment of the contested provision of national law would have the effect of creating a legal vacuum concerning the transposition of EU law on environmental protection which would be more damaging to the environment, in the sense that that annulment would result in lesser protection and would thus run counter to the essential objective of EU law; and — that any exceptional maintaining of the effects of the contested provision of national law lasts only for the period strictly necessary for the adoption of the measures making it possible to remedy the irregularity found.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/11

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-14/15 and C-116/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Automated data exchange - Registration of vehicles - Dactyloscopic data - Legal framework applicable following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Secondary legal basis - Distinction between legislative acts and implementing measures - Consultation of the European Parliament - Initiative of a Member State or of the European Commission - Voting rules))

(2016/C 419/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès, K. Michoel and K. Pleśniak, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents), and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2014/731/EU of 9 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Malta, Council Decision 2014/743/EU of 21 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to vehicle registration data (VRD) in Cyprus, Council Decision 2014/744/EU of 21 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Estonia, and Council Decision 2014/911/EU of 4 December 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Latvia;

2. Maintains the effects of Decisions 2014/731, 2014/743, 2014/744 and 2014/911 until the entry into force of new acts intended to replace them;

3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

4. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.

OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/21

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark v Finanzamt Brandenburg

(Case C-400/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value Added Tax - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Right to deduction - Decision 2004/817/EC - Legislative provision of a Member State - Expenditure on goods and services - Extent of use of goods or services for non-economic purposes greater than 90 % of total use - Exclusion of the right to deduct))

(2016/C 419/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark

Defendant: Finanzamt Brandenburg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Council Decision 2004/817/EC of 19 November 2004 authorising Germany to apply a measure derogating from Article 17 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a situation in which the goods or services that an undertaking acquires are used, to an extent greater than 90 %, for non-economic activities, which fall outside the scope of value added tax.

(1) OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.
1.

Article 4(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 4(4) 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, as amended by Council Directive 2004/66/EC of 26 April 2004, on the one hand, and the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) and Article 10 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, on the other, must be interpreted as meaning that multiple civil-law partnerships, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which conduct themselves outwardly as such and independently in relation to their suppliers, public authorities and, to a certain extent, their customers, and each of which carries out its own production by using for the most part its means of production, but which market a large proportion of their products under a common trade mark through a limited company the shares in which are held by members of those civil-law partnerships and by other members of the family in question, must be regarded as independent undertakings which are taxable persons for value-added-tax purposes.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — Маya Маrinova ET v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-576/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(a) - Article 9(1) - Article 14(1) - Articles 73, 80 and 273 - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality - Tax evasion - Anomalies in accounting - Concealment of supplies and revenue - Determination of the taxable amount))

(2016/C 441/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Маya Маrinova ET

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(a), Article 9(1), Article 14(1) and Articles 73 and 273 of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where goods are not in the warehouse of the taxable person to whom they have been supplied and the tax documents of relevance to those goods have not been recorded in the accounts of that taxable person, tax authorities may presume that the taxable person subsequently sold those goods to third parties and determine the taxable amount of the sale of those goods according to the factual information at hand pursuant to rules not provided for in that directive. It is, however, for the referring court to ascertain whether the provisions of the national legislation go further than is necessary to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent evasion.

(1) OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/22

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, Sasol Germany GmbH

(Case C-468/15 P P) (1)

((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1138/2011 and (EU) No 1241/2012 - Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(10)(i) - Adjustment - Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis - First subparagraph of Article 2(10) - Symmetry between the normal value and the export price - Principle of sound administration))

(2017/C 006/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) (represented by: D. Luff, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and by N. Tuominen, avocate), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, Agents), Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, Sasol Germany GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/22

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Westermann Lernspielverlage GmbH, formerly Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-482/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark application - Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘bambino’ and ‘lük’ - Opposition proceedings - Earlier EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘bambino’ - Partial refusal of registration - Revocation of the earlier mark on which the opposition was based - Letter from the applicant informing the General Court of that revocation - Refusal of the General Court to add that letter to the case file - Failure to state reasons))

(2017/C 006/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Westermann Lernspielverlage GmbH, formerly Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Westermann Lernspielverlage GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/14

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG v BIOS Medical Services GmbH, formerly BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH

(Case C-662/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 93/42/EEC - Medical devices - Class I device (sterile wound dressings) which has been the subject of a conformity assessment procedure by the manufacturer - Parallel imports - Addition to the labelling of information relating to the importer - Supplementary conformity assessment procedure))

(2017/C 030/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: BIOS Medical Services GmbH, formerly BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(f) and Article 11 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, must be interpreted as not requiring a parallel importer of a medical device, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which bears a CE marking and which has been subjected to a conformity assessment within the meaning of that Article 11, to carry out a further assessment designed to certify the conformity of the information allowing its identification which that parallel importer adds to the labelling of that device with a view to that device being placed on the market of the Member State of importation.

(1) OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.