ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Article 25(1) 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, subject to the verifications to be made by the referring court, a jurisdiction clause, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, set out in the general conditions of sale mentioned in invoices issued by one of the contracting parties does not satisfy the requirements of that provision.

Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the court with jurisdiction, by virtue of that provision, to hear a claim for compensation relating to the termination of a commercial concession agreement concluded between two companies established and operating in two different Member States for the distribution of goods on the domestic market of a third Member State in which neither of those companies has a branch or establishment, is that of the Member State in which the place of the main supply of services, as is clear from the provisions of the contract and, in the absence of such provisions, the actual performance of that contract, and where it cannot be determined on that basis, the place where the agent is domiciled.

It follows from the case-law of the Court that, when there are several places of performance of the obligation characteristic of a contract for the supply of services the ‘place of performance’ within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b), second indent, of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be understood as the place with the closest linking factor, which, as a general rule, will be at the place of the main provision of services (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 March 2010, Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger, C‑19/09, EU:C:2010:137, paragraphs 33 and 34).

Therefore, the court with jurisdiction to hear claims based on a contract for the supply of services in the case of the supply of services in several Member States is the court of the Member State of the place of the main provision of services, as it follows from the provisions of the contract and, in the absence of such provision, of the actual performance of that contract and, where it cannot be determined on that basis, the place where the agent is domiciled (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 March 2010, Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger, C‑19/09, EU:C:2010:137, paragraph 43).

(see paras 44, 45, 47, operative part 2)
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.

(see para. 42, operative part)
Case C‑5/17

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

v

DPAS Limited

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemption — Article 135(1)(d) — Transactions concerning payments and transfers — Concept — Scope — Dental payment plan by direct debit)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 25 July 2018

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions — Transactions concerning payments and transfers referred to in Article 135(1)(d) of Directive 2006/112 — Concept — Dental payment plan by direct debit — Precluded

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 135(1)(d))

Article 135(1)(d) 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 from value added tax which is provided for therein for transactions concerning payments and transfers does not apply to a supply of services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists for the taxable person in requesting from the relevant financial institutions, first, that a sum of money be transferred from a patient’s bank account to that of the taxable person pursuant to a direct debit mandate and, second, that that sum, after deduction of the remuneration due to that taxable person, be transferred from the latter’s bank account to the respective bank accounts of that patient’s dentist and insurer.

(see para. 51, operative part)
2.

If the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, the Italian Republic is ordered to pay to the European Commission a fine of EUR 30112500 for every six months of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 19 July 2012, Commission v Italy (C‑565/10, not published, EU:C:2012:476), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the full compliance with the judgment of 19 July 2012, Commission v Italy (C‑565/10, not published, EU:C:2012:476), the actual amount of which must be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total amount relating to each of those periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion of population equivalents of the agglomerations whose urban waste water collection and treatment systems have been rendered compliant with the judgment of 19 July 2012, Commission v Italy (C‑565/10, not published, EU:C:2012:476), at the end of the period in question, compared with the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations not having such systems on the day of delivery of the present judgment.
Joined Cases C‑195/17, C‑197/17 to C‑203/17, C‑226/17, C‑228/17, C‑254/17, C‑274/17, C‑275/17, C‑278/17 to C‑286/17 and C‑290/17 to C‑292/17

Helga Krüsemann and Others

v

TUIfly GmbH

(Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover and the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf)

(References for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Article 7(1) — Right to compensation — Exemption — ‘Extraordinary circumstances’ — ‘Wildcat strike’)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 17 April 2018

Transport — Air transport — Regulation No 261/2004 — Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Condition — Extraordinary circumstances — Concept — Spontaneous absence of a significant part of flight crew staff (wildcat strikes) stemming from the surprise announcement by an operating air carrier of a restructuring of the undertaking, following a call echoed not by the staff representatives of the company but spontaneously by the workers themselves who placed themselves on sick leave — Not included

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Art. 5(3))

Article 5(3) 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, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the spontaneous absence of a significant part of the flight crew staff (‘wildcat strikes’), such as that at issue in the disputes in the main proceedings, which stems from the surprise announcement by an operating air carrier of a restructuring of the undertaking, following a call echoed not by the staff representatives of the company but spontaneously by the workers themselves who placed themselves on sick leave, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.

(see para. 48, operative part)
2.

Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (see para. 45)
Case C‑49/17

Koppers Denmark ApS

v

Skatteministeriet

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 21(3) — Chargeable event giving rise to taxation — Consumption of energy products produced within the curtilage of an establishment producing energy products — Energy products used for purposes other than as motor fuels or as heating fuels — Consumption of solvent as fuel at the coal tar distillation plant)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 6 June 2018

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Exemption of energy products consumed within the curtilage of the establishment that has produced them — Scope — Energy products used for purposes other than as motor fuels or as heating fuels — Not included

(Council Directive 2003/96, recital 22 and Arts 2(1) and (4)(b) and 21(3))

Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the consumption of energy products, within the curtilage of an establishment that has produced them, for the purpose of producing other energy products does not fall within the exception, laid down in that provision, concerning the chargeable event giving rise to taxation where, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the energy products produced by virtue of the main activity of that establishment are used for purposes other than as motor fuels or as heating fuels.

However, as is apparent from recital 22 of Directive 2003/96, the EU legislature considered that energy products should essentially be subject to a framework common to the Member States when used as heating fuel or motor fuel and that it is therefore in the nature and the logic of the tax system to exclude from the scope of the framework, in particular, energy products used for purposes other than as motor fuel or heating fuel. Thus, even though such products fall within the definition of ‘energy products’ for the purposes of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/96, they are excluded from the scope of that directive by the first indent of Article 2(4)(b) thereof if they are not intended to be used as motor fuel or heating fuel (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 July 2007, Fendt Italiana, C‑145/06 and C‑146/06, EU:C:2007:411, paragraphs 35 and 43).

(see paras 24, 37, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2018 — Commission v Ireland

(Case C‑504/17) ( 1 )

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Directive 2003/96/EC — Articles 4 and 7 — Application of the minimum levels of taxation applicable to motor fuels — Directive 95/60/EC — Fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene — Refuelling of private pleasure craft)

Tax provisions—Harmonisation of laws—Taxation of energy products and electricity—Directive 2003/96—Application of the minimum levels of taxation applicable to motor fuels—Fuel for propelling private pleasure craft—No guarantee of actual application of the minimum levels of taxation—Directive 95/60—Fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene—Marked fuel not subject to any exemption from, or reduction in, excise duty—Authorisation to use that fuel for propelling private pleasure craft—Failure to fulfil obligations

(Council Directives 95/60 and 2003/96, Arts 4 and 7)

(see para. 69, operative part 1)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not ensuring that the minimum levels of taxation applicable to motor fuels laid down by Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity were applied to gas oil used as fuel for propelling private pleasure craft, and by permitting the use of marked fuel for propelling private pleasure craft, even where that fuel is not subject to any exemption from, or reduction in, excise duty, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 7 of Directive 2003/96 and Council Directive 95/60/EC of 27 November 1995 on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene respectively.

2. Ireland is ordered to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Article 4(5) of Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, as amended by Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to adopt rules which enable a taker of collateral provided under a security financial collateral arrangement to recover its claim, arising from a failure to discharge the relevant financial obligations, from that collateral, where the enforcement event occurs after insolvency proceedings have been commenced against that taker.

An interpretation of Article 4(5) of that directive whereby the security financial collateral arrangement would become ineffective as a result of the commencement of insolvency proceedings against the taker, preventing that party from effectively recovering its claim from that collateral and obliging the provider, in practice, to pay the taker the amount of that collateral a second time, would be contrary to both the wording of that article and the objectives pursued by Directive 2002/47. Indeed, such an interpretation would result in such an arrangement being rendered ineffective to a large extent and could, as the case may be, cause financial difficulties for that provider, contrary to the objective of limiting contagion effects in case of a default of one of the parties.

It should be added that, as was noted by the Advocate General in points 59 and 60 of his Opinion, as Article 4(5) of Directive 2002/47 does not specify the way in which the effectiveness of financial collateral is to be ensured notwithstanding the commencement of insolvency proceedings, it is for the Member States to provide for appropriate means of ensuring such effectiveness, which could include a measure whereby the financial collateral is excluded from the collateral taker’s assets.

(see paras 28-30, operative part 1)
Case C‑555/17

2M-Locatel A/S

v

Skatteministeriet

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 85287113 and 85287190 — Apparatus capable of receiving, decoding and processing live TV signals transmitted using internet technology)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 20 September 2018

Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Apparatus capable of receiving, decoding and processing live TV signals transmitted using internet technology — Classification in subheading 85287190 of the Combined Nomenclature — Condition — No video tuner

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1549/2006, Annex I)

The Combined Nomenclature set out 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 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that apparatus capable of receiving, decoding and processing live TV signals transmitted using internet technology, such as the apparatus at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified under subheading 85287190 thereof, provided that they do not incorporate a video tuner or a ‘television tuner’, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

(see para 52, operative part)
Article 4(c) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required to recognise a body collectively representing trade mark proprietors, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, as a person entitled to seek, in its own name, the application of the remedies laid down by that directive, for the purpose of defending the rights of those trade mark proprietors, and to bring legal proceedings, in its own name, for the purpose of enforcing those rights, on condition that that body is regarded by national law as having a direct interest in the defence of such rights and that that law allows it to bring legal proceedings to that end, these being matters for the referring court to verify.

Articles 12 to 14 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 (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as meaning that the limitations of liability for which they provide apply to the provider of an IP address rental and registration service allowing the anonymous use of internet domain names, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, inasmuch as that service comes within the scope of one of the categories of service referred to in those articles and meets all the corresponding conditions, in so far as the activity of such a service provider is of a merely technical, automatic and passive nature, implying that he has neither knowledge of nor control over the information transmitted or cached by his customers, and in so far as he does not play an active role in allowing those customers to optimise their online sales activity, these being matters for the referring court to verify.

(see para. 52, operative part 2)
Case C‑249/17

Ryanair Ltd

v

The Revenue Commissioners

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Concept of taxable person — Holding company — Deduction of input tax — Expenditure for consultancy services received for the purpose of the acquisition of another company’s shares — Acquiring company’s intention to provide management services to the target company — Those services not provided — Right to deduct VAT charged on the services received)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 17 October 2018

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Taxable person — Economic activities — Meaning — Preparatory economic activities — Company’s intention to acquire all the shares of another company in order to pursue an economic activity — Included — Deduction of input tax — Expenditure relating to consultancy services received for the purpose of the acquisition of shares — Right to deduction — Non-performance of the economic activity referred to — Irrelevant

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 4 and 17)

Articles 4 and 17 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 must be interpreted as conferring on a company, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which intends to acquire all the shares of another company in order to pursue an economic activity consisting in the provision of management services subject to value added tax (VAT) to that other company, the right to deduct, in full, input VAT paid on expenditure relating to consultancy services provided in the context of a takeover bid, even if ultimately that economic activity was not carried out, provided that the exclusive reason for that expenditure is to be found in the intended economic activity.

(see para. 32, operative part)
Case C‑625/17

Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

v

Finanzamt Feldkirch

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 56 and 63 TFEU — Freedom to provide services and free movement of capital — Credit institutions — Stability charge and the special contribution for that charge determined according to the unconsolidated balance sheet total of credit institutions established in Austria — Inclusion of cross-border banking transactions — Exclusion of subsidiaries’ transactions in another Member State — Difference in treatment — Restriction — Justification)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 22 November 2018

Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Taxation of credit institutions — National legislation imposing a stability charge and a special contribution for that charge determined according to the unconsolidated balance sheet total of resident credit institutions — Inclusion of services not supplied to non-resident clients by the credit institution through a foreign permanent credit institution — Exclusion of services supplied to non-resident clients by non-resident subsidiaries — Lawfulness

(Art. 56 TFEU)

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it imposes on credit institutions established in Austria, such as the credit institution at issue in the main proceedings, which do not supply services to their clients resident in other Member States through permanent credit institutions established in those Member States, a charge determined according to the ‘average unconsolidated balance sheet total’, which includes the banking transactions which those institutions enter into directly with nationals of other Member States, whilst excluding the same transactions entered into by subsidiaries of credit institutions established in Austria where those subsidiaries are established in other Member States.

(see para 44, operative part)