ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-692/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(b) and (d) - Transactions relating to the granting, negotiation and management of credit - Transactions concerning debts, with the exception of the recovery of debt - Assignment for consideration, to a third party, of a position held in enforcement proceedings for recovery of a debt recognised by a judgment)

(2019/C 423/03)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(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 exemption laid down by it in respect of transactions concerning the granting, negotiation or management of credit does not apply to a transaction which, for the taxable person, consists in assigning, to a third party, for consideration all the rights and obligations deriving from the taxable person’s position in enforcement proceedings for recovery of a debt recognised by a judgment, a debt the payment of which was secured by a right over immovable property awarded to that taxable person and made the subject of attachment.

(1) OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Cofemel — Sociedade de Vestuário, SA v G-Star Raw CV

(Case C-683/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘work’ - Protection of works by copyright - Conditions - Connection with the protection of designs - Directive 98/71/EC - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Clothing designs)

(2019/C 383/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Cofemel — Sociedade de Vestuário, SA

Respondent: G-Star Raw CV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding national legislation from conferring protection, under copyright, to designs such as the clothing designs at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that, over and above their practical purpose, they generate a specific, aesthetically significant visual effect.

(1) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Milkiyas Addis v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-517/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum policy - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Articles 14 and 34 - Obligation to give applicants for international protection the opportunity of a personal interview before the adoption of a decision declaring the application to be inadmissible - Failure to comply with that obligation in the procedure at first instance - Consequences)

(2020/C 297/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Milkiyas Addis

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 14 and 34 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 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which failure to comply with the obligation to give an applicant for international protection the opportunity of a personal interview before the adoption of a decision on the basis of Article 33(2)(a) of that directive declaring the application to be inadmissible does not lead to that decision being annulled and the case being remitted to the determining authority, unless that legislation allows the applicant, in the appeal procedure against that decision, to set out in person all of his or her arguments against the decision in a hearing which complies with the applicable conditions and fundamental guarantees set out in Article 15 of that directive, and those arguments are not capable of altering that decision.

(1) OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin — Finland) — Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö (TSN) ry v Hyvinvointialan liitto ry (C-609/17) and Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Satamaoperaattorit ry (C-610/17)

(Joined Cases C-609/17 and C-610/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 153 TFEU - Minimum safety and health requirements for the organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Right to paid annual leave of at least 4 weeks - Article 15 - Provisions of national legislation and collective agreements more favourable to the protection of the safety and health of workers - Workers incapable of working during a period of paid annual leave due to illness - Refusal to carry over that leave where not carrying over that leave does not reduce the actual duration of the paid annual leave below 4 weeks - Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Inapplicable where there is no implementation of EU law for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2020/C 27/02)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Työtuomioistuin

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-609/17)

Applicant: Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö (TSN) ry

Defendant: Hyvinvointialan liitto ry

Intervener: Fimlab Laboratoriot Oy (C-609/17)

(Case C-610/17)

Applicant: Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry

Defendant: Satamaoperaattorit ry

Intervener: Kemi Shipping Oy

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as not precluding national rules or collective agreements which provide for the granting of days of paid annual leave which exceed the minimum period of 4 weeks laid down in that provision, and yet exclude the carrying over of those days of leave on the grounds of illness.

2. Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 51(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that it is not intended to apply where such national rules or collective agreements exist.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued in respect of TC

(Case C-492/18 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 12 - Keeping a person in detention - Article 17 - Time limits for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant - National legislation providing for automatic suspension of detention 90 days after arrest - Interpretation in conformity with EU law - Suspension of time limits - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 6 - Right to liberty and security - Differing interpretations of national legislation - Clarity and predictability)

(2019/C 131/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party in the main proceedings

TC

Operative part of the judgment

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down a general and unconditional obligation to release a requested person arrested pursuant to a European arrest warrant as soon as a period of 90 days from that person’s arrest has elapsed, where there is a very serious risk of that person absconding and that risk cannot be reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of appropriate measures.

Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national case-law which allows the requested person to be kept in detention beyond that 90-day period, on the basis of an interpretation of that national provision according to which that period is suspended when the executing judicial authority decides to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, or to await the reply to a request for a preliminary ruling made by another executing judicial authority, or to postpone the decision on surrender on the ground that there could be, in the issuing Member State, a real risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions, in so far as that case-law does not ensure that that national provision is interpreted in conformity with Framework Decision 2002/584 and entails variations that could result in different periods of continued detention.

(1) OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.
1.

Declares that, by providing that the royalty payable to an author of an original work of art on the basis of the resale right is subject to value added tax, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;
1.

Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute concerning a claim for compensation brought under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, and directed against an airline, established in the territory of another Member State, on the ground that that company has a branch within the territorial jurisdiction of the court seised, without that branch having been involved in the legal relationship between the airline and the passenger concerned.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v État belge

(Case C-174/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Equal treatment - Income tax - Legislation for the avoidance of double taxation - Pension received in a Member State other than that of residence - Method of calculating the exemption in the Member State of residence - Loss of part of the benefit of certain tax advantages)

(2019/C 155/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the application of tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has the effect of depriving a couple resident in that State, one of whom receives a pension in another Member State which is exempt from taxation in the first Member State pursuant to a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation, of part of the benefit of the tax advantages granted by the Member State of residence.

(1) OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol — Austria) — PI v Landespolizeidirektion Tirol

(Case C-230/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Article 15(2) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Restriction - Decision to immediately close a commercial enterprise - No statement of reasons - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Prevention of criminal offences against persons engaged in prostitution - Protection of public health - Proportionality of the restriction on the freedom of establishment - Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Effectiveness of judicial review - Rights of defence - General principle of the right to good administration)

(2019/C 230/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol

Parties to the main proceedings

Complainant: PI

Defendant authority: Landespolizeidirektion Tirol

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU, Article 15(2) and Articles 16, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principle of the right to good administration must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, as precluding national legislation providing that an administrative authority may decide to close a commercial establishment with immediate effect, on the ground that it suspects that prostitution is practised in that establishment without the authorisation required under that legislation, in so far as that legislation, first, does not require reasons, in fact and in law, to be given in writing for such a decision and to be communicated to its addressee, and second, requires that any application brought by that addressee and seeking annulment of that decision must be reasoned.

(1) OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
—

not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the exclusion from the right to deduct VAT paid on the purchase of overnight accommodation and catering services, that exclusion having been introduced before the accession of the Member State concerned to the European Union and maintained thereafter, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 176 of Directive 2006/112, and which means that a taxable person, who does not provide tourism services, is deprived of the right to deduct VAT paid on the purchase of such overnight accommodation and catering services which that taxable person re-invoices to other taxable persons.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2019 — Inge Barnett v European Economic and Social Committee

(Case C-503/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Official - Retirement pension - Early retirement without reduction of pension rights - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 9(2) of Annex VIII — General implementing provisions - Interests of the service - Decision adopted to comply with a judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal - Article 266 TFEU - Res judicata)

(2019/C 263/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Inge Barnett (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, acting as Agents)

Other party: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: Pascua Mateo, A. Carvajal and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and by M. Troncoso Ferrer, abogado, F.-M. Hislaire, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the appeal;

2. orders Mrs Inge Barnett to bear her own expenses, as well as those incurred by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).

(1) OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 May 2019 — Asociación de la pesca y acuicultura del entorno de Doñana y del Bajo Guadalquívir (Pebagua) v European Commission

(Case C-204/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Environment - Prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species - Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 - Adoption of a list of invasive alien species of Union concern - Inclusion of the species Procambarus clarkii)

(2019/C 255/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Asociación de la pesca y acuicultura del entorno de Doñana y del Bajo Guadalquívir (Pebagua) (represented by: A. Uceda Sosa, abogado)

Other party: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Asociación de la pesca y acuicultura del entorno de Doñana y del Bajo Guadalquívir (Pebagua) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
1.

Article 30(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that when the customs value of goods, such as the medicinal product at issue in the main proceedings, is calculated by applying the deductive method laid down in that provision, the competent national customs authority must, in order to identify ‘similar goods’, take into consideration any relevant factor, such as the respective compositions of those goods, their substitutability in the light of their effects and their commercial interchangeability, thus conducting a factual assessment which takes into account any factor that may have an impact on the real economic value of those goods, including the market position of the imported goods and of their manufacturer.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de Paix du canton de Visé — Belgium) — Michel Schyns v Belfius Banque SA

(Case C-58/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Pre-contractual obligations - Article 5(6) - Obligation on the creditor to seek to establish the credit most suitable - Article 8(1) - Obligation on the creditor to refrain from concluding the loan agreement if there are doubts over the creditworthiness of the consumer - Obligation on the creditor to assess the expediency of the credit)

(2019/C 263/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Justice de Paix du canton de Visé

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michel Schyns

Defendant: Belfius Banque SA

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 5(6) 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 not precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which obliges creditors or credit intermediaries to seek to establish, within the framework of the credit agreements which they usually offer, the type and the amount of credit most suitable, taking into account the consumer’s financial situation at the time the credit agreement is concluded and the purpose of the credit.

2. Article 5(6) and Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which obliges the creditor to refrain from concluding the credit agreement if he cannot reasonably take the view, following the check of the consumer’s creditworthiness, that the consumer will be able to fulfil the obligations arising from the proposed agreement.

(1) OJ C 166. 14.5.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

(Case C-410/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(2) - Financial aid for higher education studies - Non-resident students - Condition connected with the period of their parents’ working time on national territory - Minimum period of five years - Reference period of seven years - Method of calculation of the reference period - Date of the application for financial aid - Indirect discrimination - Justification - Proportionality)

(2019/C 305/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nicolas Aubriet

Defendant: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) 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, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the grant of financial aid for higher education studies to non-resident students subject to the condition that, at the date of the application for financial aid, one of the parents of the student has been employed or carried on an activity in that Member State for a period of at least five years in the course of a reference period of seven years calculated retroactively from the date of that application for financial aid, in so far as it does not permit the existence of any connection with the labour market of that Member State to be understood in a sufficiently broad manner.

(1) OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Federal Express Corporation Deutsche Niederlassung v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main

(Case C-26/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Articles 202 and 203 - Customs duties on imports - Incurrence of a customs debt due to failure to comply with customs rules - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(d) and Article 30 - Import VAT - Taxable event - Definition of ‘importation’ of goods - Requirement of entry of the goods into the economic network of the European Union - Transportation of those goods into a Member State other than the Member State in which the customs debt arose)

(2019/C 305/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federal Express Corporation Deutsche Niederlassung

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(d) and Article 30 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, when goods are introduced into the territory of the European Union, it is not sufficient that those goods were the subject of a failure to comply with customs rules in a given Member State, which in that Member State gave rise to a customs debt on importation, in order to find that those goods entered into the economic network of the European Union in that Member State, where is it is established that those goods were transported into another Member State, their final destination, where they were consumed, the import VAT relating to those goods then arising only in that other Member State.

(1) OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.