ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/12

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — The Shirtmakers BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-59/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 32(1)(e)(i) - Customs value - Transaction value - Determination - Concept of ‘cost of transport’))

(2017/C 239/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Shirtmakers BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Article 32(1)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘cost of transport’, within the meaning of that provision, includes the supplement charged by the forwarding agent to the importer, corresponding to that agent’s profit margin and costs, in respect of the service which it provided in organising the transport of the imported goods to the customs territory of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/10

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Dumitru Marcu v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

(Case C-392/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 199(1)(c) - No VAT registration - Reverse charge - Hypothetical nature of the question referred - Inadmissibility of the question referred))

(2017/C 283/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dumitru Marcu

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania) is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.
1.

Article 67(2) TFEU and Articles 20 and 21 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which confers on the police authorities of the Member State in question the power to check the identity of any person, within an area of 30 kilometres from that Member State’s land border with other States parties to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed at Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990, with a view to preventing or terminating unlawful entry into or residence in the territory of that Member State or preventing certain criminal offences which undermine the security of the border, irrespective of the behaviour of the person concerned and of the existence of specific circumstances, unless that legislation lays down the necessary framework for that power ensuring that the practical exercise of it cannot have an effect equivalent to that of border checks, which is for the referring court to verify;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-206/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Directive 2004/25/EC - Takeover bids - Second subparagraph of Article 5(4) - Possibility of changing the price of the offer in specific circumstances and according to clearly determined circumstances and criteria - National law providing an option for the supervisory authority to increase the price of a takeover bid in the event of collusion between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers))

(2017/C 300/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA, Antares European Fund Limited, Antares European Fund II Limited, Antares European Fund LP, Luca Orsini Baroni, UniCredit SpA, Camfin SpA

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Intervenening parties: Camfin SpA, Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA, Antares European Fund Limited, Antares European Fund II Limited, Antares European Fund LP, Luca Orsini Baroni, Marco Tronchetti Provera & C. SpA, UniCredit SpA

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids must be interpreted as not precluding a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which enables a national supervisory authority to adjust upwards the price of a takeover bid in the event of collusion without setting out the specific conduct that characterises that notion, provided that the interpretation of that notion can be deduced in a sufficiently clear, precise and foreseeable manner from that law, using methods of interpretation recognised by national law.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 293/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Radosław Szoja v Sociálna poisťovňa

(Case C-89/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Application of social security schemes - Migrant workers - Person pursuing an activity as an employed person and an activity as a self-employed person in two different Member States - Determination of the applicable legislation - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 13(3) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 14(5b) - Article 16 - Effects of the decisions of the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 293/07)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Radosław Szoja

Defendant: Sociálna poisťovňa

Intervening parties: WEBUNG, ebung s.r.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(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, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the national legislation applicable under that provision to a person, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who normally pursues an activity as an employed person and an activity as a self-employed person in different Member States, the requirements laid down in Article 14(5b) and Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 465/2012, must be taken into account.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 338/2

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Fidelidade-Companhia de Seguros SA v Caisse Suisse de Compensation, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, Sandra Cristina Crystello Pinto Moreira Pereira, Sandra Manuela Teixeira Gomes Seemann, Catarina Ferreira Seemann, José Batista Pereira and Teresa Rosa Teixeira

(Case C-287/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Second Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 2(1) - Insurance contract concluded on the basis of false statements concerning the ownership of the vehicle and the identity of its usual driver - Policyholder - No economic interest in the conclusion of that contract - Insurance contract null and void - Whether that nullity may be invoked against third-party victims))

(2017/C 338/02)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fidelidade-Companhia de Seguros SA

Defendants: Caisse Suisse de Compensation, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, Sandra Cristina Crystello Pinto Moreira Pereira, Sandra Manuela Teixeira Gomes Seemann, Catarina Ferreira Seemann, José Batista Pereira and Teresa Rosa Teixeira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, and Article 2(1) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which would have the effect of making it possible to invoke against third-party victims, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the nullity of a contract for motor vehicle insurance against civil liability arising as a result of the policyholder initially making false statements concerning the identity of the owner and of the usual driver of the vehicle concerned or from the fact that the person for whom or on whose behalf that insurance contract was concluded had no economic interest in the conclusion of that contract.

(1) OJ C 326, 6.9.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/10

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry

(Case C-175/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 17 - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Additional payments - Child protection association - ‘Children’s village parents’ - Temporary absence of ‘foster parents’ - Workers employed as ‘relief parents’ - Definition))

(2017/C 309/12)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik

Defendant: SOS-Lapsikylä ry

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1) 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 meaning that it cannot apply to paid work, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in caring for children in a family-like environment, relieving the person principally responsible for that task, where it is not established that the working time as a whole is not measured or predetermined or it may be determined by the worker himself, which is for the national court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-18/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 9 - Right to remain in a Member State during the examination of the application - Directive 2013/33/EU - First subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) - Detention - Verification of identity or nationality - Determination of the elements on which the application for international protection is based - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 6 and 52 - Restriction - Proportionality))

(2017/C 382/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of that provision in the light of Articles 6 and 52(1) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/17

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia v ‘Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments’ EOOD

(Case C-132/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 26(1)(b) and Articles 168 and 176 - Deduction of input tax - Services relating to construction or improvement of a property belonging to a third party - Use of services by the third party and by the taxable person - Service supplied free of charge to the third party - Entry of costs incurred for services carried out in the accounts as part of the taxable person’s general costs - Determination of the existence of a direct and immediate link with the economic activity of the taxable person))

(2017/C 382/19)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

Defendant:‘Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments’ EOOD

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 has the right to deduct input value added tax in respect of a supply of services consisting of the construction or improvement of a property owned by a third party when that third party enjoys the results of those services free of charge and when those services are used both by the taxable person and by the third party in the context of their economic activity, in so far as those services do not exceed that which is necessary to allow that taxable person to carry out the taxable output transactions and where their cost is included in the price of those transactions.

(1) OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/13

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 — Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Republic of Poland

(Case C-598/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name))

(2017/C 424/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (represented by T. Beazley QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by P. Mahnič Bruni and J.-P. Hix, Agents), European Commission (represented initially by S. Bartelt and J. Norris-Usher, and subsequently by E. Paasivirta and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
1.

Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) 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 in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings where the international jurisdiction of a Community design court seised of an action for infringement is based, with regard to one defendant, on Article 82(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 and, with regard to a second defendant established in another Member State, on that Article 6(1) read in conjunction with Article 79(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, because the second defendant makes and supplies to the first defendant the goods that the latter sells, that court may, on the applicant’s request, adopt orders in respect of the second defendant concerning measures falling under Article 89(1) and Article 88(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 also covering the second defendant’s conduct other than that relating to the abovementioned supply chain and with a scope which extends throughout the European Union;
1.

Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding, at the time of the registration for the purposes of value added tax of a taxable person, of which the director was formerly the director or associate member of another legal person which had not complied with its tax obligations, the tax authority from requiring that taxable person to provide a guarantee, the amount of which could reach EUR 500 000, provided that the guarantee required from that taxable person does not go further than is necessary in order to attain the objectives of Article 273, which it is for the referring court to determine.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/8

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Solar Electric Martinique v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

(Case C-303/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Works of construction - French overseas departments - Provisions rendered applicable by national law - Transactions consisting in sale and installation on buildings - Classification as a single transaction - Lack of jurisdiction))

(2017/C 424/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Solar Electric Martinique

Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France) by decision of 20 May 2016.

(1) OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/12

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundefinanzhof — Germany) — Rochus Geissel, in his capacity as liquidator of RGEX GmbH i.L v Finanzamt Neuss (C-374/16), and Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin (C-375/16)

(Joined Cases C-374/16 and C-375/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168(a), Article 178(a) and Article 226(5) - Deduction of input tax - Compulsory content of invoices - Legitimate expectation on the part of the taxable person regarding the existence of the conditions giving rise to the right to deduct))

(2018/C 022/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundefinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rochus Geissel, in his capacity as liquidator of RGEX GmbH i.L. (C-374/16), Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach (C-375/16)

Defendant: Finanzamt Neuss (C-374/16), Igor Butin (C-375/16)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) and Article 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 226(5) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the exercise of the right to deduct input VAT subject to the condition that the address where the issuer of an invoice carries out its economic activity must be indicated on the invoice.

(1) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.
2.

Article 31 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 955/1999, read in conjunction with Article 6(3) of that regulation, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities are obliged to state, in their decision fixing the amount of import duties due, the reasons leading them to set aside the methods for determining customs value set out in Articles 29 and 30 of that regulation, as amended, before they could decide to apply the method laid down in Article 31 of that regulation, as amended, and the data on the basis of which the customs value of the goods was calculated, in order to enable the person concerned to assess whether that decision is well founded and to decide in full knowledge of the circumstances whether it is worthwhile for him to bring an action against it. It is for the Member States, exercising their procedural autonomy, to regulate the consequences of a failure by the customs authorities to fulfil their obligation to state reasons and to determine whether and to what extent such a failure may be remedied in the course of legal proceedings, subject to observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.
2.

Articles 9(5) and 60(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 must be interpreted as meaning that a public procurement procedure such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, in which criteria more restrictive than those laid down in Directive 2004/18 have been applied, cannot be considered as having been conducted in complete conformity with EU law and is not eligible for non-reimbursable European funding, granted retrospectively. Article 2(7) of Regulation No 1083/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that the use of pre-selection criteria for tenderers that are more restrictive than those provided for by Directive 2004/18 constitutes an ‘irregularity’, within the meaning of that article, justifying the application of a financial correction pursuant to Article 98 of that regulation, provided that it cannot be ruled out that such use had an impact on the budget of the Funds at issue, which it is for the national court to determine.