ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Council of State, France) — Christian Picart v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

(Case C-355/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - 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 - Direct taxation - Transfer of the place of residence from a Member State to Switzerland - Taxation of unrealised gains on significant shareholdings in a number of companies established in the Member State of origin at the time of such transfer - Scope of the Agreement))

(2018/C 166/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Council of State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Picart

Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Where a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not come within the scope ratione personae of the notion of ‘self-employed persons’, within the meaning of 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 in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, the terms of that agreement must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a State party to that agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, when a natural person transfers his residence from that State to another State party to that agreement, while maintaining his economic activity in the first of those two States, without undertaking every day, or at least once a week, a journey from the place of his economic activity to that of his residence, provides for the immediate taxation of the unrealised capital gains on significant shareholdings held by that person in companies governed by the laws of the first State at the time of the transfer of residence and which allows deferred recovery of the tax due only if suitable guarantees to ensure recovery of the tax are provided, whereas a person who also holds such shareholdings, but who continues to reside in the territory of the first of those States, need pay tax only at the time of transfer of those shareholdings.

(1) OJ C 335, 12.09.2016.
2.

A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings imposed on large distribution establishments according, in essence, to their sales area, does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU to the extent that it exempts establishments whose sales area does not exceed 500 m2 and those whose sales area exceeds that threshold but whose basis of assessment does not exceed 2000 m2. Nor, in so far as that tax exempts establishments which pursue the business of selling machinery, vehicles, tools and industrial supplies, construction materials, plumbing materials and doors and windows, for sale only to professionals, fittings for individual, conventional and specialist establishments, and motor vehicles, as well as garden centres and service stations, does it constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, provided that those establishments do not have as significant an adverse effect on the environment and on town and country planning as the others, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.
Case C-517/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku — Poland) — Stefan Czerwiński v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Material scope — Article 3 — Declaration made by Member States under Article 9 — Bridging pension — Classification — Statutory pre-retirement schemes — Exclusion of the rule of aggregation of periods under Article 66)

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku — Poland) — Stefan Czerwiński v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku

(Case C-517/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Material scope — Article 3 — Declaration made by Member States under Article 9 — Bridging pension — Classification — Statutory pre-retirement schemes — Exclusion of the rule of aggregation of periods under Article 66)’

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stefan Czerwiński

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku

Operative part of the judgment

1. The classification of a benefit under one of the branches of social security listed in Article 3 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, made by the competent national authority in the declaration submitted by the Member State pursuant to Article 9(1) of that regulation, is not definitive. The classification of a social security benefit may be made by the national court concerned, autonomously and on the basis of the elements that constitute the social security benefit at issue, and by referring, if necessary, a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court.

2. A benefit such as that at issue in the main proceedings must be regarded as an ‘old-age benefit’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 883/2004.

( 1 ) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Case C-325/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA v Administracíon General del Estado, Sapec Agro SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Directive 91/414/EEC — Directive 2010/28/EU — Article 3(1) — Procedure for re-evaluation by Member States, authorised plant protection products — Time limit — Extension)

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA v Administracíon General del Estado, Sapec Agro SA

(Case C-325/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Directive 91/414/EEC — Directive 2010/28/EU — Article 3(1) — Procedure for re-evaluation by Member States, authorised plant protection products — Time limit — Extension)’

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA

Defendants: Administracíon General del Estado, Sapec Agro SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Commission Directive 2010/28/EU of 23 April 2010 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include the active substance metalaxyl must be interpreted as meaning that the time limit that it lays down, expiring on 31 December 2010, to allow Member State to amend or withdraw, in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, existing authorisations for plant protection products containing metalaxyl as an active substance, is a mandatory time limit, which cannot be extended by those Member States.

( 1 ) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
1.

The Specific Mechanisms laid down in Chapter 2 of Annex IV to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, in Chapter 1 of Annex V to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, and in Chapter 1 of Annex IV to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, must be interpreted as authorising the holder of a supplementary protection certificate issued in a Member State other than the new Member States referred to in those Acts of Accession to oppose the parallel importation of a medicinal product from those new Member States in a situation where the legal systems of those States provided for the possibility of obtaining equivalent protection at the time when the application for the basic patent was published and/or the application for a supplementary protection certificate in the importing Member State was filed, but did not yet provide for such a possibility at the time when the application for a basic patent was filed, with the result that it was impossible for the patent holder to obtain an equivalent patent and a supplementary protection certificate in the exporting States.
Case C-665/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Gmina Wrocław (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(a) — Supply of goods for consideration — Article 14(1) — Transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner — Article 14(2)(a) — Transfer of the ownership of property belonging to a municipality to the Public Treasury in return for the payment of compensation for the purposes of the construction of a national road — Concept of ‘compensation’ — Transaction subject to VAT)

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Gmina Wrocław

(Case C-665/16) ( 1 )

‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(a) — Supply of goods for consideration — Article 14(1) — Transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner — Article 14(2)(a) — Transfer of the ownership of property belonging to a municipality to the Public Treasury in return for the payment of compensation for the purposes of the construction of a national road — Concept of ‘compensation’ — Transaction subject to VAT)’

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Gmina Wrocław

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(a) and Article 14(2)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a transfer of ownership of immovable property belonging to a taxable person for value added tax purposes to the Public Treasury of a Member State, carried out in accordance with the law and in return for a payment of compensation, constitutes a transaction subject to VAT in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the same person simultaneously represents the expropriating authority and the municipality that is the subject of the expropriation and where the latter continues the practical management of the relevant property, even if the payment of compensation has been made only by means of an internal accounting transfer within the budget of the municipality.

( 1 ) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
1.

Article 3(1)(a) 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 (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a benefit such as the personal assistance at issue in the main proceedings, which entails, inter alia, covering the costs to which a severely disabled person’s everyday activities give rise, with the aim of enabling that person, who is not economically active, to study in higher education, does not fall within the concept of ‘sickness benefit’ within the meaning of that provision and is therefore outside the scope of Regulation No 883/2004.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Marcandi Ltd, trading as ‘Madbid’ v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-544/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Issuing of ‘credits’ that can be used to place bids in online auctions - Supply of services for consideration - Preliminary transaction - Article 73 - Taxable amount))

(2018/C 301/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marcandi Ltd, trading as ‘Madbid’

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(1)(c) 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 issue of ‘credits’, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allow an operator’s clients to bid in the auctions that it organises, are a supply of services for consideration, for which the consideration is the amount paid in return for those ‘credits’.

2. Article 73 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the value of ‘credits’ used in order to bid is not included in the consideration received by the taxable person in return for the supplies of goods that it makes for the benefit of users who won an auction organised by it, or users who purchased a product using the ‘buy now’ or ‘earned discount’ features.

3. When interpreting the relevant provisions of EU and national law, courts of a Member State that find that the same transaction has been the object of a different tax treatment for the purposes of VAT in another Member State have the power, or even — depending on whether there is a judicial remedy under national law against its decisions — an obligation, to refer a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court.

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS and Others v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

(Case C-510/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 108(3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 - Notified aid schemes - Article 4 - Alteration to existing aid - Significant increase in revenue from taxes allocated to financing of aid schemes in comparison with the projections notified to the European Commission - 20 % threshold of the original budget))

(2018/C 408/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS, Fnac Paris, Fnac Direct, Relais Fnac, Codirep, FNAC Périphérie

Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

An increase in the revenue from taxes financing several authorised aid schemes in comparison with the projections notified to the European Commission, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes an alteration to existing aid, within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] and of the first sentence of Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation No 659/1999, read in the light of Article 108(3) TFEU, unless that increase remains below the 20 % threshold laid down in the second sentence of Article 4(1) of that latter regulation.

That threshold must be assessed, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in relation to the revenue assigned to the aid schemes concerned and not in relation to the aid actually allocated.

(1) OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE v European Commission

(Case C-378/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) and of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) - MARE, Senior and ECRN projects - Commission decision to recover sums unduly paid - Jurisdiction of the EU judicature)

(2020/C 297/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE (represented by: A. D’Amico and S. Famiani, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by F. Moro, S. Delaude and L. Di Paolo, and subsequently by F. Moro and S. Delaude, acting as Agents, and by D. Gullo, avvocato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 April 2016, Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission (T-539/13, not published, EU:T:2016:235);

2. Refers Case T-539/13 back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2019 — Council of the European Union v Marquis Energy LLC, European Commission, ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol

(Case C-466/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 - Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Country-wide dumping margin - Actions for annulment - Non-exporting producer - Locus standi - Direct concern)

(2019/C 139/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, Agent, and N. Tuominen, avocată)

Other parties to the proceedings: Marquis Energy LLC (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, advocaat, and N. Mizulin and M. Peristeraki, avocats), European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and M. França, Agents), ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (represented by: O. Prost and A. Massot, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 June 2016, Marquis Energy v Council (T-277/13, not published, EU:T:2016:343);

2. Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Marquis Energy LLC as inadmissible;

3. Orders Marquis Energy LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union both in relation to the proceedings at first instance and the appeal;

4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs both in the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

(1) OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/11

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — OL v PQ

(Case C-111/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - International child abduction - Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 11 - Application for return - Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of an infant - Child born, as agreed by her parents, in a Member State other than that where they were habitually resident - Child continuing to reside for the first months of her life in the Member State of her birth - Mother’s decision not to return to the Member State where the couple had been habitually resident))

(2017/C 249/16)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OL

Defendant: PQ

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation, such as that in the main proceedings, where a child has been born and has lived continuously with her mother for several months, in accordance with the joint wishes of her parents, in a Member State other than that where those parents were habitually resident before her birth, the initial intention of the parents with respect to the return of the mother, together with the child, to the latter Member State cannot allow the conclusion that that child was ‘habitually resident’ there, within the meaning of that regulation.

Consequently, in such a situation, the refusal of the mother to return to the latter Member State together with the child cannot be considered to be a ‘wrongful removal or retention’ of the child, within the meaning of Article 11(1).

(1) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/14

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Comune di Castelbellino v Regione Marche and Others

(Case C-117/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Article 4(2) and (3) and Annexes I to III - Environmental impact assessment - Authorisation to carry out work in a plant for the production of electricity from biogas without preliminary examination of the need for an environmental impact assessment - Annulment - Regularisation after the event of the authorisation on the basis of new provisions of national law without preliminary examination of the need for an environmental impact assessment))

(2018/C 142/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Castelbellino

Defendants: Regione Marche, Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Regione Marche Servizio Infrastrutture Trasporti Energia — P. F. Rete Elettrica Regionale, Provincia di Ancona

Other party to the proceedings: Società Agricola 4 C S.S.

Operative part of the judgment

Where a project to increase the capacity of a plant for the production of electricity, such as the project at issue in the main proceedings, has not been subject to a preliminary examination of the need to carry out an environmental impact assessment pursuant to national legislative provisions subsequently declared incompatible with Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment in that regard, EU law requires Member States to nullify the unlawful consequences of that breach and does not preclude that plant from being subject, after completion of the project, to a new assessment by the competent authorities for the purpose of verifying whether it complies with that directive and, where appropriate, to an environmental impact assessment, on condition that the national rules allowing for that regularisation do not provide the parties concerned with an opportunity to circumvent the rules of EU law or to dispense with applying them. The environmental impact of the project from the time of its completion must also be taken into account. Those authorities are entitled to take the view, on the basis of national provisions in force at the time they are required to give a decision, that such an environmental impact assessment is not required, in so far as those provisions are compatible with that directive.

(1) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.