ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 317/10

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — Uszodaépítő kft v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

(Case C-392/09) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct input tax - New national legislation - Requirements as to the content of an invoice - Retroactive application - Loss of the right to deduct)

2010/C 317/18

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Baranya Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uszodaépítő kft

Defendant: APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

Re:

Interpretation of Articles 17 and 20 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), and the general principles of Community law — New national legislation on VAT giving taxable persons the right to opt for its application, even retroactively, to cases in progress on the date of its entry into force — Application with retroactive effect, failing which the right to deduct is lost, of the new provisions regarding the requirements as to the contents of the invoice

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167, 168 and 178 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding the retroactive application of national legislation which, in the context of a reverse charge regime, makes the deduction of value added tax relating to construction works conditional upon the amendment of invoices for those services and the submission of a supplementary, amending tax declaration, while the tax authority concerned has all the information necessary to establish that the taxable person is, as the recipient of the supply of services at issue, liable to value added tax, and to ascertain the amount of tax deductible.

(1) OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/13

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom)) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v AXA UK PLC

(Case C-175/09) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Exemption - Article 13B(d)(3) - Transactions concerning payments or transfers - Debt collection and factoring - Payment plans for dental care - Service of collecting and processing payments for the account of the service supplier’s clients)

2010/C 346/21

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondent: AXA UK PLC

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(3) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions — Scope — Meaning of ‘service that has the effect of transferring funds and entail[ing] changes in the legal and financial situation’ — Collection, processing and onward payment services for traders’ credits from customers — Payment plans for dental care

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(3) 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT provided for by that provision does not cover a supply of services which consist, in essence, in requesting a third party’s bank to transfer to the service supplier’s account, via the direct debit system, a sum due from that party to the service supplier’s client, in sending to the client a statement of the sums received, in making contact with the third parties from whom the service supplier has not received payment and, finally, in giving instructions to the service supplier’s bank to transfer the payments received, less the service supplier’s remuneration, to the client’s bank account.

(1) OJ C 153, 04.07.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/19

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV

(Case C-423/09) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Dried vegetables (garlic bulbs) from which not all moisture has been removed)

2010/C 346/31

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: X BV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1) — Tariff classification of dried vegetables (garlic bulbs), from which not all of the moisture has been removed and which are imported in a chilled state

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that garlic which has undergone an intensive drying process in accordance with a specific treatment as a result of which all, or almost all, of the moisture in the product is removed comes under tariff subheading 0712 90 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, but that partially dried garlic which retains the properties and characteristics of fresh garlic comes under tariff subheading 0703 20 00 of the Combined Nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/8

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Leverkusen v Verigen Transplantation Service International AG

(Case C-156/09) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13(A)(1)(c) - Exemptions for activities in the public interest - Provision of medical care - Removal and multiplication of cartilage cells for the purpose of reimplantation in the patient)

2011/C 13/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof — Germany

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Leverkusen

Defendant: Verigen Transplantation Service International AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 13A(1)(c) and the first paragraph of Article 28bF 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Removal of joint cartilage cells from cartilage material taken from a human being by persons established in other Member States and subsequent multiplication of those cells with a view to their being implanted in a patient by the same persons — Determination of the place where services are supplied — Exemption of those services as ‘the provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(A)(1)(c) 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 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that the removal of joint cartilage cells from cartilage material taken from a human being and the subsequent multiplication of those cells for reimplantation for therapeutic purposes constitute ‘provision of medical care’ in accordance with that provision.

(1) OJ C 180, 01.08.2009.
1.

In the case in which a national of a non-member country is lawfully resident in a Member State of the European Union and works in Switzerland, Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May 2003 extending the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by those provisions solely on the ground of their nationality does not apply to that person in his Member State of residence, in so far as Regulation No 859/2003 is not among the Community acts mentioned in section A of Annex II to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed at Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, which the parties to that agreement undertake to apply. Consequently, there is no obligation on the Member State of residence to apply Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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 amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, and Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, to that employee and his spouse;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/10

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against R.

(Case C-285/09) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 28c(A)(a) - Evasion of VAT - Refusal to grant an exemption of VAT on intra-Community supplies of goods - Vendor’s active participation in the fraud - Powers of the Member States in connection with the prevention of potential tax evasion, avoidance and abuse)

2011/C 55/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Party in the main criminal proceedings

R.

In the presence of: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof, Finanzamt Karlsruhe-Durlach

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 28c(A)(a) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended — Evasion of VAT — Refusal to grant an exemption of turnover tax on intra-Community supplies of goods — Vendor’s active participation in the fraud

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which an intra-Community supply of goods has actually taken place, but when, at the time of that supply, the supplier concealed the identity of the true purchaser in order to enable the latter to evade payment of value added tax, the Member State of departure of the intra-Community supply may, pursuant to its powers under the first part of the sentence in Article 28c(A) 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 2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000, refuse to allow an exemption in respect of that transaction.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Hungary)) — Ker-Optika Bt. v ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete

(Case C-108/09) (1)

(Free movement of goods - Public health - Selling of contact lenses via the Internet - National legislation authorising the sale of contact lenses solely in medical supply shops - Directive 2000/31/EC - Information society - Electronic commerce)

2011/C 30/03

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Baranya Megyei

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ker-Optika Bt.

Defendant: ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Articles 28 and 30 EC and of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1) — Marketing of contact lenses on the internet — National rules reserving the sale of contact lenses to shops selling medical supplies

Operative part of the judgment

The national rules relating to the selling of contact lenses fall within the scope of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), since they concern the act of selling such lenses via the Internet. On the other hand, the national rules relating to the supply of contact lenses are not covered by that directive.

Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU, and Directive 2000/31, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which authorises the selling of contact lenses only in shops which specialise in medical devices.

(1) OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.
1.

Declares that, in failing, firstly, to establish monitoring programmes on the status of inland surface water and make them operational in accordance with Article 8(1) and (2) 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, and, secondly, to submit summary reports on the monitoring programmes on the status of inland surface water in accordance with Article 15(2) of that directive, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8 and 15 of that directive;
1.

Supplies of services effected by an operator such as the applicant in the main proceedings under a scheme such as the ‘Options Scheme’ at issue in the main proceedings must be classified at the time when the customer participating in such a scheme converts the rights he initially acquired into a service offered by that operator. Where those rights are converted into hotel accommodation or into a right to temporarily use a property, those supplies are supplies of services connected with immovable property within the meaning of Article 9(2)(a) 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 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, which are performed at the place where the hotel or that property is situated.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary)) — Donat Cornelius Ebert v Budapesti Ügyvédi Kamara

(Case C-359/09) (1)

(Lawyers - Directive 89/48/EEC - Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration - Directive 98/5/EC - Practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained - Use of the professional title of the host Member State - Conditions - Registration with the Bar Association of the host Member State)

2011/C 103/08

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Donat Cornelius Ebert

Defendant: Budapesti Ügyvédi Kamara

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Interpretation of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) — Legislation of a Member State reserving the possibility of practising law, using the professional lawyer’s title of that State, to lawyers who are registered with the Bar Association in that Member State

Operative part of the judgment

1. Neither Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, nor Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained preclude national rules laying down the requirement to be a member of a body such as a Bar Association in order to practise the profession of lawyer under the title of lawyer of the host Member State.

2. Directives 89/48 and 98/5 complement one another by establishing two means by which lawyers from Member States may gain admission to the profession of lawyer in a host Member State under the professional title of that Member State.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus — Finland) — Mehiläinen Oy, Terveystalo Healthcare Oy, formerly Suomen Terveystalo Oyj v Oulun kaupunki

(Case C-215/09) (1)

(Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Mixed contract - Contract concluded between a contracting authority and a private company independent of it - Establishment, on an equal basis, of a joint venture to provide health care services - Undertaking by the partners to purchase health care services for their staff from the joint venture for a transitional period of four years)

2011/C 63/07

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Markkinaoikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Mehiläinen Oy, Terveystalo Healthcare Oy, formerly Suomen Terveystalo Oyj

Defendant: Oulun kaupunki

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Markkinaoikeus — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (d) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Agreement between a municipality and an independent private company for the establishment of a joint undertaking, belonging to them in equal shares, to which their respective occupational health and wellbeing activities are transferred — Agreement by which the municipality and the private company commit themselves to acquiring from the new joint undertaking, during a transitional period, occupational health and wellbeing services for their own employees

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, where a contracting authority concludes with a private company independent of it a contract establishing a joint venture in the form of a share company, the purpose of which is to provide occupational health care and welfare services, the award by the contracting authority of the contract relating to the services for its own staff, the value of which exceeds the threshold laid down by that directive, and which is severable from the contract establishing that company, must be made in accordance with the provisions of that directive applicable to the services in Annex II B thereof.

(1) OJ C 193, 15.08.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 173/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-321/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - EAGGF - Expenditure excluded from Community financing owing to failure to comply with Community rules - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic)

2011/C 173/03

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009, in Case T-33/07 Greece v Commission, by which that court dismissed an application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (notified under document number C(2006) 5993) — Olive oil, cotton, dried grapes and citrus fruit sectors

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.