ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Article 65(2) and (5) 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 (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, must be interpreted as applying to a situation in which, before being wholly unemployed, the person concerned resided in a Member State other than the competent Member State and was not actually employed but was on sick leave and received, on that basis, sickness benefits paid by the competent Member State, provided, however, that, in accordance with the national law of the competent Member State, entitlement to such benefits is treated in the same way as the pursuit of an activity as an employed person;
1.

Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that a contract under which a person provides for the future transfer, on death, of ownership of immovable property belonging to him or her to other parties to the contract is an agreement as to succession within the meaning of that provision;
1.

Articles 167 to 171 and 178 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010 and Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State must be interpreted as meaning that the right to a refund of value added tax (VAT) charged on a supply of goods cannot be exercised by a taxable person established not in the Member State of refund but in another Member State, if that taxable person does not hold an invoice, within the meaning of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, relating to the purchase of the goods concerned. Only if a document is so flawed as to deprive the national tax administration of the information necessary to support a refund claim can such a document be considered not to be an ‘invoice’ within the meaning of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45.
1.

Article 19(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 must be interpreted as not precluding a farmer who has received business start-up aid for the development of small farms, provided for in point (a)(iii) of that provision, from cumulating that aid with business start-up aid for young farmers, provided for in point (a)(i) of that provision, in so far as the maximum amount of aid granted, as referred to in Article 19(6), is complied with;
Official Journal of the European Union

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-107/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 52(4)(c) - Flat-rate financial corrections - Period of 24 months - Expenditure covered by that period - Method of calculating the correction - Adjustment of the correction rate)

(2022/C 24/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Tsaousi, A.-E. Vasilopolou and E.-E. Krompa, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt B v X-Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH

(Case C-324/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Supply of services - Articles 63 - Chargeability of VAT - Articles 64(1) - Concept of ‘supplies which give rise to successive payments’ - One-time supply remunerated by means of payment in instalments - Articles 90(1) - Reduction of the taxable amount - Concept of ‘non-payment of the price’)

(2022/C 2/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Finanzamt B

Respondent: X-Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 64(1) 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 service supplied on a single occasion remunerated by way of instalment payments does not fall within the scope of that provision.

2. Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an agreement on payment in instalments, the fact that an instalment of the remuneration has not been paid before its term cannot be regarded as non-payment of the price, within the meaning of that provision, and, as a result, cannot lead to a reduction of the taxable amount.

(1) OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske — Croatia) — HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb, successor in title to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj p.o., Zagreb v BP Europa SE, successor in title to Deutsche BP AG, in turn successor in title to The Burmah Oil (Deutschland) GmbH

(Case C-242/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(3) - Concept of ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ - Judicial enforcement proceedings - Action for recovery of sums unduly paid based on unjust enrichment - Article 22(5) - Enforcement of judgments - Exclusive jurisdiction)

(2022/C 73/04)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb, successor in title to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj p.o., Zagreb

Defendant and respondent: BP Europa SE, successor in title to Deutsche BP AG, in turn successor in title to The Burmah Oil (Deutschland) GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 22(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for restitution based on unjust enrichment does not come within the exclusive jurisdiction provided for by that provision, even though it was brought on account of the expiry of the time limit within which restitution of sums unduly paid in enforcement proceedings may be claimed in the context of the same enforcement proceedings.

2. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for restitution based on unjust enrichment does not fall within the scope of the ground of jurisdiction laid down in that provision.

(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Veszprémi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Amper Metal Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-334/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2 - Transaction subject to VAT - Concept - Article 168(a) and Article 176 - Right to deduct input VAT - Refusal - Advertising services categorised as excessively expensive and not beneficial by the tax authority - Lack of turnover generated by the taxable person)

(2022/C 51/13)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Veszprémi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Amper Metal Kft

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(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 taxable person may deduct input value added tax (VAT) paid for advertising services where such a supply of services constitutes a transaction subject to VAT within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2006/112, and has a direct and immediate link with one or more taxable output transactions or with the taxable person’s economic activity as a whole, by way of overheads, without it being necessary to take into account the fact that the price charged for such services is excessive in relation to a reference value defined by the national tax authorities or that those services have not given rise to an increase in the taxable person’s turnover.

(1) OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — ‘MONO’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-326/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Excise duties - Directive 2008/118/EC - Exemption from the harmonised excise duty - Goods intended for use in the context of diplomatic or consular relations - Conditions for the application of the exemption laid down by the host Member State - Payment by means other than cash)

(2022/C 109/09)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘MONO’ SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as precluding the host Member State, where it lays down conditions and limits for the application of the exemption from excise duty on goods used in the context of diplomatic and consular relations, from making the application of that exemption subject to the condition that the purchase price of those goods be paid by means of payment other than cash.

(1) OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Gtflix Tv v DR

(Case C-251/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(2) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Publication on the internet of allegedly disparaging comments concerning a person - Place where the harmful event occurred - Courts of each Member State in which content placed online is or has been accessible)

(2022/C 84/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gtflix Tv

Defendant: DR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, considering that his or her rights have been infringed by the dissemination of disparaging comments concerning him or her on the internet, seeks not only the rectification of the information and the removal of the content placed online concerning him or her but also compensation for the damage resulting from that placement may claim, before the courts of each Member State in which those comments are or were accessible, compensation for the damage suffered in the Member State of the court seised, even though those courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on the application for rectification and removal.

(1) OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Apcoa Parking Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-90/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Scope - Taxable transactions - Activities carried out by a company incorporated under private law - Operation of car parks on private land - Control fees levied by that company in the event of failure by the motorists to comply with the general terms and conditions for use of those car parks - Characterisation - Economic and commercial realities of the transactions)

(2022/C 119/08)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Apcoa Parking Danmark A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

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 control fees levied by a company incorporated under private law, tasked with the operation of private car parks, in the event of failure by the motorists to comply with the general terms and conditions for use of those car parks must be regarded as consideration for a supply of services within the meaning of that provision and, as such, subject to value added tax (VAT).

(1) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
2.

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a series of measures introduced by a government decision and consisting of, first, priority dispatch by the system operator, in which the State has the majority shareholding, of the electricity generated by certain electricity producers whose installations use indigenous primary energy fuel sources, second, guaranteed access to transmission systems for the electricity generated by those producers’ installations, and, third, an obligation for those producers to provide ancillary services for a certain quantity of megawatts to the system operator, which is to reserve for them a right to supply that quantity at prices fixed in advance and deemed to exceed the prices on the market, may be classified as ‘State aid’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. If this is the case, such a series of measures must be regarded as new aid and is, on that ground, subject to the obligation of prior notification to the European Commission, in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU.
1.

Articles 23 and 32(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not follow from those provisions that Member States are obliged to adopt legislation under which, first, any final customer may choose to be connected either to the transmission system or to the distribution system for natural gas, and, second, the system operator concerned is required to allow him to connect to that system.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Philips Orăştie S.R.L. v Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-487/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 179 and 183 - Right to deduct VAT - Conditions - Compensation or refund of excess VAT - Additional liabilities - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

(2022/C 148/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Philips Orăştie S.R.L.

Defendant: Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 179 and the first paragraph of Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as well as the principle of equivalence, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which lays down detailed procedural rules governing actions for the refund of value added tax (VAT), based on an infringement of the common system of VAT, less favourable than those applicable to similar actions based on an infringement of domestic law relating to duties and taxes other than VAT.

(1) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
1.

Article 20 of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’), in so far as it requires the penalties provided for therein to be proportionate, has direct effect and may thus be relied on by individuals before national courts against a Member State which has transposed it incorrectly.
1.

Articles 8 and 12(а) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as not requiring the adoption of national legislation providing that the normal length of night work for workers in the public sector, such as police officers and firefighters, is shorter than the normal length of day work laid down for them. Such workers should in any case benefit from other protective measures in terms of working hours, pay, allowances or similar benefits, in order to compensate for the particular hardship involved in the night work they perform.
2.

The second paragraph of Article 19(1) TEU, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as not precluding the formation of a court of a Member State which includes a judge whose initial appointment as a judge or subsequent appointment to a higher court was made either following that judge’s selection as a candidate for a judicial position by a body composed on the basis of legislative provisions subsequently declared unconstitutional by the constitutional court of that Member State or following that judge’s selection as a candidate for a judicial position by a body properly composed but following a procedure that was neither transparent nor public nor open to challenge before the courts, provided that such irregularities are not of such a kind and of such gravity as to create a real risk that other branches of the State, in particular the executive, could exercise undue discretion undermining the integrity of the outcome of the appointment process and thus give rise to serious and legitimate doubts, in the minds of individuals, as to the independence and impartiality of the judge concerned, from being considered to be an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law.
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Generální ředitelství cel v TanQuid Polska Sp. z o. o.

(Case C-711/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Excise duties - Directive 92/12/EC - Article 4 - Movement of products under excise duty suspension - Conditions - Articles 6 and 20 - Release of products for consumption - Falsification of the accompanying administrative document - Offence or irregularity committed in the course of the movement of products subject to excise duty under a duty suspension arrangement - Irregular departure of products from a suspension arrangement - Consignee unaware of the movement - Fraud committed by a third party - Article 13(a) and Article 15(3) - Compulsory guarantee to cover movement - Scope)

(2022/C 198/12)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generální ředitelství cel

Defendant: TanQuid Polska Sp. z o. o.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that the dispatch, by an authorised warehousekeeper, of products subject to excise duty, under cover of an accompanying document and a compulsory guarantee, constitutes movement of products under excise duty suspension, within the meaning of Article 4(c) thereof, notwithstanding the fact that, as a result of fraudulent conduct on the part of third parties, the consignee indicated in that accompanying document and in that guarantee is unaware that those products have been dispatched to him or her, as long as that fact or another irregularity or infringement has not been established by the competent authorities of the Member State concerned.

The fact that the compulsory guarantee provided by the authorised warehousekeeper for the purpose of such dispatch specifies the name of the authorised consignee, but not his or her status as a registered trader, shall not affect the lawfulness of such movement.

(1) OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.
—

third, as precluding national legislation which provides that, where the payment of export refunds, a financial penalty, anti-dumping duties or import duties has, as the case may be, been refused or imposed in breach of EU law, the payment of interest may be made only in respect of the period from the date on which the legal proceedings seeking the payment or repayment of the sum of money in question were brought to the date of the decision given by the court having jurisdiction, to the exclusion of the earlier period. On the other hand, those principles do not, in themselves, preclude such legislation from providing that that payment is to be due only if such proceedings have been brought, provided that this does not have the effect of making the exercise of the rights which persons derive from EU law excessively difficult.
2.

Article 132(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether medical care provided by a private hospital is supplied under social conditions comparable with those applicable to bodies governed by public law, the competent authorities of a Member State may take into consideration — where they are intended to attain the objective of reducing medical costs and making high-quality care more accessible to individuals — the regulatory conditions applicable to the services supplied by hospitals governed by public law and indicators of that private hospital’s performance in terms of staff, premises and equipment and the cost-efficiency of its management, in so far as those indicators are also applicable to establishments governed by public law. Account may also be taken of the method of calculating fixed-rate daily fees and the fact that the services supplied by that private hospital are borne by the social security regime or under contracts concluded with public authorities, so that the cost borne by patients is similar to that borne by patients for similar services supplied by hospitals governed by public law.