ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Article 63 TFEU, read in the light of the principle of proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the taxation in the form of a withholding tax of notional interest that a resident subsidiary which has been granted an interest-free loan by its non-resident parent company would have had to pay to the latter had the loan been concluded under market conditions, where that withholding tax applies to the gross amount of that interest, without it being possible to deduct, at that stage, expenses related to that loan since a subsequent application to that effect is necessary for the purpose of recalculating that tax and making a possible refund, in so far as, first, the length of the procedure laid down for that purpose by that legislation is not excessive and, second, interest is owed on the amounts refunded.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 March 2022 — Hermann Albers eK v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Land Niedersachsen (Germany)

(Case C-656/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Concept of ‘aid’ - Public transport of passengers - Offsetting of costs involved in the performance of public service obligations - Transfer of financial resources between public authorities - Obligation for municipal authorities that organise transport to guarantee reduced tariffs for students and apprentices - Lack of an advantage granted by the State to an undertaking - Obligation to notify)

(2022/C 198/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Hermann Albers eK (represented by: S. Roling, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and K. Blanck, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany, Land Niedersachsen (Germany) (represented by: S. Barth and H. Gading, Rechtsanwältinen)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Hermann Albers eK to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Orders Land Niedersachsen (Germany) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2022 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-275/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Decision (EU) 2020/470 - Extension of the period of entitlement for audiovisual co-productions as provided for in Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part - Procedural legal basis - Article 218(7) TFEU - Applicable procedure and voting rule)

(2022/C 171/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.F. Brakeland, M. Afonso and D. Schaffrin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Plaza García and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: J.-L. Carré, T. Stehelin, E. de Moustier and A. Daniel, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, C.S. Schillemans and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision (EU) 2020/470 of 25 March 2020 as regards the extension of the period of entitlement for audiovisual co-productions as provided for in Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part;

2. Orders that the effects of Decision 2020/470 be maintained in force until the grounds for annulment established have been remedied;

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

4. Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — A SCPI

(Case C-342/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Articles 63 and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Restrictions - Tax on the income of legal persons - Exemption for investment funds - Conditions for exemption - Condition related to the fund being in contractual form)

(2022/C 213/09)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A SCPI

Interested party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, by limiting entitlement to the exemption of rental income and of profits from the disposal of immovable property or shares in companies owning immovable property solely to investment funds constituted in accordance with contract law, excludes from entitlement to that exemption a non-resident alternative investment fund constituted in accordance with statute, even though that fund, which benefits from a system of tax transparency in the Member State in which it is established, is not subject to income tax in that latter Member State.

(1) OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 March 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-139/20) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation of energy products used by energy-intensive businesses - Directive 2003/96/EC - Article 17(1)(b) and (4) - Businesses covered by the EU Emissions Trading System - Exemption from excise duty)

(2022/C 207/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: initially, M. Siekierzyńska and A. Armenia, and, subsequently, A. Armenia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 April 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark (C-368/20), Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz (C-369/20)

(Joined Cases C-368/20 and C-369/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Free movement of persons - Regulation (EU) 2016/399 - Schengen Borders Code - Article 25(4) - Temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders for a maximum total duration of six months - National legislation providing for a number of successive periods of border control resulting in that duration being exceeded - Non-compliance of such legislation with Article 25(4) of the Schengen Borders Code where the successive periods are based on the same threat or threats - National legislation requiring, on pain of a penalty, a passport or identity card to be presented when the internal border control is carried out - Non-compliance of such an obligation with Article 25(4) of the Schengen Borders Code when the border control itself is contrary to that provision)

(2022/C 237/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NW

Defendants: Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark (C-368/20), Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz (C-369/20)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 25(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016, must be interpreted as precluding border control at internal borders from being temporarily reintroduced by a Member State on the basis of Articles 25 and 27 of that code where the duration of its reintroduction exceeds the maximum total duration of six months, set in Article 25(4), and no new threat exists that would justify applying afresh the periods provided for in Article 25.

2. Article 25(4) of Regulation 2016/399, as amended by Regulation 2016/1624, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation by which a Member State obliges a person, on pain of a penalty, to present a passport or identity card on entering the territory of that Member State via an internal border, when the reintroduction of the internal border control in relation to which that obligation is imposed is contrary to that provision.

(1) OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v DSAB Destination Stockholm AB

(Case C-637/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Common system of value added tax - Article 30a(1) - Concept of ‘voucher’ - Article 30a(3) - Concept of ‘“multi-purpose” voucher’ - Sale of a card entitling the cardholder to a number of tourist services for a limited period)

(2022/C 237/14)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Skatteverket

Respondent: DSAB Destination Stockholm AB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 30a of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016, must be interpreted as meaning that an instrument which gives the bearer thereof the right to benefit from various services at a given place, for a limited period and up to a certain amount, may constitute a ‘voucher’ within the meaning of Article 30a(1) of that directive, even if, on account of the limited validity period of that instrument, an average consumer cannot benefit from all the services offered. That instrument constitutes a ‘multi-purpose voucher’ within the meaning of Article 30a(3) of that directive, since the value added tax due on those services is not known at the time of issuance of that instrument.

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2022 — European Commission v Hansol Paper Co. Ltd, European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA)

(Case C-260/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 - Imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Articles 6, 16 and 18 - Proof - Information provided other than by responding to an anti-dumping questionnaire - Weighting of sales affecting the dumping calculation - Article 2(1) and (3) - Calculation of the normal value - Hierarchy between the calculation methods - Article 3(2) and (3) - Injury - Calculation of the undercutting margin - Cross-appeal - Article 2(11) - Full degree of dumping - Article 18 - Exemption from responding to an anti-dumping questionnaire - Lack of non-cooperation)

(2022/C 257/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: initially J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, and subsequently J.-F. Brakeland and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hansol Paper Co. Ltd (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, B. Servais and V. Crochet, avocats) and European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) (represented by: H. Hobbelen, B. Vleeshouwers and K. Huyghebaert, advocaten, and J. Rivas, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

3. Orders the European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 May 2022 — European Commission v Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Others

(Case C-54/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Non-contractual liability of the European Union based on a failure of an institution to fulfil its duty to ensure the protection of its officials - Delegation of the European Commission in Morocco - Murdered official - Non-material damage suffered by the official’s brother and sister - Remedy - Articles 270, 268 and 340 TFEU - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Articles 40, 42b, 55a, 73, 90 and 91 - Concept of a ‘person to whom the Staff Regulations apply’ - Statement of reasons)

(2022/C 244/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima, T.S. Bohr and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Maria Letizia Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (represented by: F. Di Gianni, G. Coppo and A. Scalini, avvocati), Anne Jeanne Cécile Magdalena Maria Sintobin, Carlo Amadeo Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Giustina Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Tommaso Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Filiberto Missir Mamachi di Lusignano

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Ms Maria Letizia Missir Mamachi di Lusignano.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — B. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w.

(Case C-696/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 41 - Intra-Community acquisition of goods - Place - Chain of successive transactions - Incorrect classification of some of the transactions - Principles of proportionality and fiscal neutrality)

(2022/C 318/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: B.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 41 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which an intra-Community acquisition of goods is regarded as having been made in the territory of that Member State, where that acquisition, which constitutes the first stage of a chain of successive transactions, was wrongly classified as a domestic transaction by the taxable persons involved, which indicated for that purpose their value added tax (VAT) identification number allocated by that Member State, and VAT was applied to the subsequent transaction, which was wrongly classified as an intra-Community transaction, as an intra-Community acquisition of goods by the persons acquiring the goods in the Member State in which the transport of the goods ended. That provision, read in the light of the principles of proportionality and fiscal neutrality, nevertheless precludes such legislation of a Member State where the intra-Community acquisition of goods which is regarded as being realised within the territory of that Member State results from an intra-Community supply of goods which has not been treated as an exempt transaction in that Member State.

(1) OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.
1.

Articles 9 and 50 TEU and Articles 20 to 22 TFEU, read in conjunction with the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, which was adopted on 17 October 2019 and entered into force on 1 February 2020, must be interpreted as meaning that, as of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union, on 1 February 2020, nationals of that State who exercised their right to reside in a Member State before the end of the transition period no longer enjoy the status of citizen of the Union, nor, more specifically, by virtue of Article 20(2)(b) TFEU and Article 22 TFEU, the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, including where they are also deprived, by virtue of the law of the State of which they are nationals, of the right to vote in elections held by that State;
3.

Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1370/2007, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/2338, and point 2 of the annex thereto must be interpreted as meaning that: compensation for the net financial effect, positive or negative, on costs incurred and revenues generated in complying with the tariff obligations established through general rules, which aim at establishing maximum tariffs for certain categories of passenger, must be granted in accordance with the principles set out in Article 4 and Article 6 of that regulation and in the annex thereto, in a way that prevents overcompensation. The compensation may not exceed an amount corresponding to the net financial effect equivalent to the total of the effects, positive or negative, of compliance with the public service obligation on the costs and revenue of the public service operator, which are assessed by comparing the situation where the public service obligation is met with the situation which would have existed if the obligation had not been met.
1.

Article 7(c) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) and Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides for the publication online of the declaration of private interests that any head of an establishment receiving public funds is required to lodge, in so far as, in particular, that publication concerns name-specific data relating to his or her spouse, cohabitee or partner, or to persons who are close relatives of the declarant, or are known by him or her, liable to give rise to a conflict of interests, or concerns any transaction concluded during the last 12 calendar months the value of which exceeds EUR 3 000.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Valladolid — Spain) — BFF Finance Iberia S.A.U v Gerencia Regional de Salud de la Junta de Castilla y León

(Case C-585/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/7/EU - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Recovery from a public authority of claims assigned by undertakings to a debt collection agency - Compensation for the recovery costs incurred by the creditor in the event of late payment by the debtor - Article 6 - Fixed minimum sum of EUR 40 - Transactions between undertakings and public authorities - Article 4 - Procedure for certification of the conformity of goods or services - Payment period - Article 2(8) - Concept of ‘amount due’ - Taking account of value added tax for the purpose of calculating interest for late payment)

(2022/C 472/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 deValladolid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BFF Finance Iberia S.A.U

Defendant: Gerencia Regional de Salud de la Junta de Castilla y León

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 6 of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as meaning that the fixed minimum sum of EUR 40, by way of compensation for the creditor for the recovery costs incurred as a result of late payment by the debtor, is payable for each commercial transaction not paid on the due date, evidenced in an invoice, including where that invoice is presented, among other invoices, in a single administrative or judicial claim.

2) Article 4(3) to (6) of Directive 2011/7 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which provides, as a general rule, for all commercial transactions between undertakings and public authorities, for a payment period of a maximum of 60 calendar days, including where that period consists of an initial period of 30 days for a procedure for the acceptance or verification of the conformity, with the contract, of the goods or services supplied, followed by a further period of 30 days for payment of the agreed price.

3) Article 2(8) of Directive 2011/7 must be interpreted as meaning that the taking into account, as part of the ‘amount due’ defined in that provision, of the amount of value added tax specified in the invoice or the equivalent request for payment is unrelated to the question as to whether or not the taxable person has already paid that amount to the Treasury on the date on which the delay in payment occurs.

(1) OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
1.

Article 12(2)(a) and (d) of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) and Article 23(2)(g) and (h) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (market abuse regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6 and Commission Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC, read in conjunction with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as: precluding legislative measures which, as a preventive measure, in order to combat market abuse offences including insider dealing, provide for the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic data for a year from the date on which they were recorded.
2.

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that in the case of an entity which is the single taxable person of a group formed by persons who are legally independent but closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links, and which carries out, on the one hand, economic activities for which it is a taxable person and, on the other, activities in the exercise of its powers as a public authority, in respect of which it is not considered to be a taxable person liable for value added tax under Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, the provision, by an entity forming part of that group, of services in connection with that exercise of powers, must not be taxed under Article 6(2)(b) of that directive.