ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Sögård Fastigheter AB

(Case C-787/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - National legislation providing for the adjustment of deductions of value added tax (VAT) by a taxable person other than the person who initially applied the deduction - Sale by a company to individuals of a building let by that company and by the previous owning company - End of VAT liability when the property is sold to individuals)

(2021/C 35/03)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Sögård Fastigheter AB

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, while providing, on the basis of Article 188(2) of that directive, that the transferor of immovable property is not required to adjust a deduction of value added tax carried out in advance where the transferee will use that property only for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible, also requires the transferee to adjust that deduction for the remaining duration of the adjustment period, where he or she, in turn, transfers the property in question to a third party who will not use it for such transactions.

(1) OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — Adler Real Estate AG, Petrus Advisers LLP, GM v Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA)

(Case C-605/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Securities admitted to trading on a regulated market situated or operating within a Member State - Transparency requirement - Notification of ‘major holdings’ acquired in companies by ‘persons acting in concert’ - Directive 2004/109/EC - Article 3(1a), fourth subparagraph - Concept of ‘more stringent requirements’ - Directive 2004/25/EC - ‘Supervision’ by an authority appointed pursuant to Article 4 of that directive)

(2021/C 462/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Adler Real Estate AG, Petrus Advisers LLP, GM

Defendant: Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1a), fourth subparagraph, (iii), of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, as amended by Directive 2013/50/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, first, makes shareholders, or natural persons or legal entities referred to in Article 10 or 13 of Directive 2004/109, as amended by Directive 2013/50, subject to requirements relating to notification of major holdings that are more stringent, within the meaning of that fourth subparagraph, than those provided for in Directive 2004/109, as amended by Directive 2013/50, and those more stringent requirements result from laws, regulations or administrative provisions adopted in relation, inter alia, to takeover bids; and, secondly, does not assign the power to ensure compliance with such requirements to an authority of that Member State appointed pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids.

(1) OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Federazione nazionale delle imprese elettrotecniche ed elettroniche (Anie) and Others (C-798/18), Athesia Energy Srl and Others (C-799/18) v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA

(Joined Cases C-798/18 and C-799/18) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations - Energy Charter Treaty - Article 10 - Applicability - Directive 2009/28/EC - Article 3(3)(a) - Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Production of electricity from solar photovoltaic installations - Alteration of a support scheme)

(2021/C 217/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Federazione nazionale delle imprese elettrotecniche ed elettroniche (Anie) and Others (C-798/18), Athesia Energy Srl and Others (C-799/18)

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Gestore dei servizi energetici (GSE) SpA

Interveners: Elettricità Futura Unione delle imprese elettriche italiane and Confederazione generale dell’agricoltura italiana — Confagricoltura

Operative part of the judgment

Subject to verifications to be carried out by the referring court taking into account all the relevant factors, Article 3(3)(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the reduction or delay of the payment of incentives for energy produced by solar photovoltaic installations which were previously granted by administrative decisions and confirmed by special agreements concluded between the operators of those installations and a public company, where that legislation concerns incentives for which provision has previously been made but which are not yet due.

(1) OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against DK

(Case C-653/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Article 6 - Burden of proof - Continuation of the detention on remand pending trial of an accused person)

(2020/C 36/19)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party in the main proceedings

DK

Interested party: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, and Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union do not apply to a national law that makes the release of a person held in detention on remand pending trial conditional on that person establishing the existence of new circumstances justifying that release.

(1) OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
2.

Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 465/2012, must be interpreted as not precluding a situation in which a person who has ceased to be insured under the social security system of his or her Member State of origin after ceasing to be employed there and moving his or her place of residence to another Member State, where he or she worked and completed the majority of his or her periods of insurance, is refused a benefit such as the rehabilitation allowance at issue in the main proceedings by the competent institution of his or her Member State of origin, since that person is subject not to the legislation of the State of origin but to that of the Member State in which his or her place of residence is situated.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave — Slovakia) — RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.

(Case C-290/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Consumer credit agreements - Article 10(2) - Information to be included in credit agreements - Annual percentage rate of charge - Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge - Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%)

(2020/C 68/13)

Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Krajský súd v Trnave

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RN

Defendant: Home Credit Slovakia a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(2)(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, as amended by Commission Directive 2011/90/EU of 14 November 2011, must be interpreted as precluding, in a consumer credit agreement, the annual percentage rate of charge from being expressed not as a single rate but as a range referring to a minimum and a maximum rate.

(1) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2020 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-276/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Derogations - Simplification measures and measures to prevent tax evasion or avoidance - Article 395(2) - Obligation incumbent on Member States to notify the European Commission of special measures intended to simplify the procedure for charging VAT - Substantial amendment of the measure initially notified)

(2020/C 240/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: F. Shibli, acting as Agent, O. Thomas QC and R. Hill, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by introducing new simplification measures that extend the zero-rating and the exception to the normal requirement to keep value added tax records which were provided for in the Value Added Tax (Terminal Markets) Order 1973, as amended by the Value Added Tax (Terminal Markets) (Amendment) Order 1975, without submitting an application to the European Commission with a view to seeking the authorisation of the Council of the European Union, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 395(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — Condominio di Milano, via Meda v Eurothermo SpA

(Case C-329/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Article 1(1) - Article 2(b) - Definition of ‘consumer’ - Commonhold of a building)

(2020/C 222/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Condominio di Milano, via Meda

Defendant: Eurothermo SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national case-law which interprets legislation intended to transpose that directive into national law in such a way that its protective rules of consumer law also apply to a contract between a seller or supplier and a subject of the law such as the condominio in Italian law, notwithstanding that such a subject of the law does not fall within the scope of that directive.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Boudewijn Schokker v European Union Aviation Safety Agency

(Case C-310/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Contract staff - Recruitment procedure - Classification in grade - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Article 86 - European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) - General implementing provisions - Challenge of the proposed classification - Withdrawal of the offer of employment - Action for compensation - Principle of sound administration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Breach of administrative duty - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Non-material damage - Compensation)

(2020/C 262/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Boudewijn Schokker (represented by: T. Martin and S. Orlandi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Aviation Safety Agency (represented by: S. Rostren, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the order of the General Court of the European Union of 8 February 2019, Schokker v EASA (T-817/17, not published, EU:T:2019:74);

2. Orders the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 7 500 to Mr Boudewijn Schokker;

3. Orders the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to pay its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-817/17 and the appeal proceedings as well as those incurred by Mr Boudewijn Schokker relating to both those proceedings.

(1) OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
1.

Article 3(3)(f) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that a contract between an architect and a consumer, according to which the former commits to establishing only, for the latter, a project for the construction of a single-family house and, in that context, to preparing plans, is not a contract for the construction of a new building, within the meaning of that provision.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG

(Case C-380/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2013/11/EU - Alternative dispute resolution - Article 13(1) and (2) - Mandatory information - Accessibility of information)

(2020/C 279/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Defendant: Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) and (2) of Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on consumer alternative dispute resolution and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on ADR) are to be interpreted as meaning that a trader who provides in an accessible manner on his website the general terms and conditions of sales or service contracts, but concludes no contracts with consumers via that website, must provide in his general terms and conditions information about the ADR entity or ADR entities by which that trader is covered, when that trader commits to or is obliged to use that entity or those entities to resolve disputes with consumers. It is not sufficient in that respect that the trader either provides that information in other documents accessible on his website, or under other tabs thereof, or provides that information to the consumer in a separate document from the general terms and conditions, upon conclusion of the contract subject to those general terms and conditions.

(1) OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Vodafone Portugal — Comunicações Pessoais SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-43/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Scope - Taxable transactions - Services supplied for consideration - Monies paid where customers fail to comply with the contractual tie-in period - Characterisation)

(2020/C 271/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone Portugal — Comunicações Pessoais SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

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 amounts received by an economic operator in the event of early termination, for reasons specific to the customer, of a services contract requiring compliance with a tie-in period in exchange for granting that customer advantageous commercial conditions, must be considered to constitute the remuneration for a supply of services for consideration, within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — NG, OH v SC Banca Transilvania SA

(Case C-81/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Scope - Article 1(2) - Definition of ‘mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions’ - Supplementary provisions - Loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Term relating to the foreign exchange risk)

(2020/C 287/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: NG, OH

Defendant: SC Banca Transilvania SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term which has not been individually negotiated but which reflects a rule that, under national law, applies between contracting parties provided that no other arrangements have been established in that respect falls outside the scope of that directive.

(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 — George Haswani v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-241/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Measures directed against leading businesspersons operating in Syria - List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name - Action for annulment and compensation)

(2020/C 287/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: George Haswani (represented by: G. Karouni, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented: initially by A. Bouquet, L. Baumgart and A. Tizzano, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and L. Baumgart, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Mr George Haswani to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
3.

Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, as amended by Directive 2011/83, must be interpreted as meaning that terms of a consumer credit agreement which impose on the consumer costs other than repayment of the principal loan amount and payment of interest do not fall within the exception provided for in that provision, where those terms do not specify either the nature of those costs or the services which they are intended to remunerate and where they are formulated in such a way as to give rise to confusion on the part of the consumer as to his or her obligations and the economic consequences of those terms, which it is for the referring court to ascertain;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — JE v KF

(Case C-249/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 - Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation - Uniform rules - Article 10 - Application of the law of the forum)

(2020/C 297/20)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JE

Defendant: KF

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘where the law applicable by virtue of Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce’ applies only where the foreign law applicable makes no provision for divorce in any form.

(1) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil — Slovenia) — Tax-Fin-Lex d.o.o. v Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve

(Case C-367/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public service contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 2(1)(5) - Concept of ‘public contract’ - Concept of ‘contract for pecuniary interest’ - Tenderer’s bid at a price of EUR 0.00 - Rejection of the tender - Article 69 - Abnormally low tender)

(2020/C 390/14)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tax-Fin-Lex d.o.o.

Defendant: Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve

Intervener: LEXPERA d.o.o.,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(5) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2365 of 18 December 2017, must be interpreted as not constituting a legal basis for rejecting a tenderer’s bid in a public procurement procedure on the sole ground that the price proposed in the tender is EUR 0.00.

(1) OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — BMW Bayerische Motorenwerke AG v Hauptzollamt München

(Case C-509/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Union Customs Code - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Article 71(1)(b) - Customs value - Imports of electronic products equipped with software)

(2020/C 390/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BMW Bayerische Motorenwerke AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Operative part of the judgment

Article 71(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as allowing, for the purposes of determining the customs value of imported goods, the economic value of software designed in the European Union and made available free of charge by the buyer to the seller established in a third country to be added to the transaction value of imported goods.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.