ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče (Slovenia)) — Petar Kezić s.p. Trgovina Prizma v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-331/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value-added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Articles 2(1) and 4(1) - Tax liability - Immovable property transactions - Sale of lands assigned to the private assets of a natural person exercising the profession of sole trader - Taxable person acting as such))

(2015/C 294/17)

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Petar Kezić s.p. Trgovina Prizma

Respondent: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings — where a taxable person has acquired plots of land, some of which have been assigned to his private assets and others to his business and, where he has built, in his capacity as a taxable person, upon all of those plots of land, a shopping centre which was then sold together with the plots of land on which the building was erected — the sale of the plots of land which were assigned to that taxable person’s private assets must be subject to value added tax since that person, at the time of that transaction, acted as such.

(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
1.

declares that, by applying a scheme of State intervention, consisting of the obligation, for energy undertakings, to apply prices for supplies of natural gas which have been approved by the president of the Urzad Regulacji Energetyki (Energy Regulation Authority), an obligation which is unlimited in time and for which national law does not impose on the administrative authorities any obligation to check at regular intervals the necessity and nature of the application of that intervention in the gas sector, having regard to the level of development of that sector, and which is characterised by its application to an unlimited group of users or customers, without any distinction being drawn according to customers and without any differentiation of the situation of individuals within the context of individual groups of customers, the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under the provisions of Article 3(1) in conjunction with Article 3(2) 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;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/9

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Société Sodiaal International

(Case C-383/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 3 - Recovery of Community aid - Administrative penalty - Administrative measures - Limitation period))

(2015/C 354/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Defendant: Société Sodiaal International

Operative part of the judgment

The fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation which it lays down is applicable not only to proceedings concerning irregularities which lead to the imposition of administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5 thereof but also to proceedings which lead to the adoption of administrative measures within the meaning of Article 4 thereof.

(1) OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/12

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover

(Case C-344/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tariff and statistical nomenclature - Classification of goods - Amino acid mixes used for the preparation of foodstuffs for infants and young children allergic to cow’s milk proteins - Classification under tariff headings 2106 ‘food preparations’ or 3003 ‘medicinal products’))

(2015/C 371/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that amino acid mixes, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are used in the preparation of foodstuffs for infants and young children who are allergic to cow’s milk proteins, must be classified under heading 2106 of that nomenclature as ‘food preparations’ since, because of their objective characteristics and properties, those goods do not have clearly defined therapeutic or prophylactic characteristics, with an effect concentrated on precise functions of the human organism and, accordingly, are not capable of being applied in the prevention or treatment of diseases or ailments and also are not naturally intended for medical use, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

(1) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
1.

Article 2(1)(a) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002, and Article 1(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999 and approved on behalf of the European Union by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a determination on the basis of Article 17 of that Convention of a claim for damages brought by a person who — whilst she (i) was a passenger in an aircraft that had the same place of take-off and landing in a Member State and (ii) was being carried free of charge for the purpose of viewing from the air a property in connection with a property transaction planned with the pilot of that aircraft — was physically injured when the aircraft crashed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/3

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Finanzamt Linz v Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz

(Case C-66/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU, 54 TFEU, 107 TFEU and 108(3) TFEU - Freedom of establishment - State aid - Taxation of groups of companies - Acquisition of a holding in a subsidiary - Depreciation of the goodwill - Limitation on holdings in resident companies))

(2015/C 398/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Linz

Defendant: Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz

Parties concerned: IFN-Holding AG, IFN Beteiligungs GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the context of the taxation of a group of companies, allows a parent company, in the case of the acquisition of a holding in a resident company which becomes a member of such a group, to depreciate the goodwill up to a maximum of 50 % of the purchase price of the holding, while such depreciation is prohibited in the case of the acquisition of a holding in a non-resident company.

(1) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
1.

Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding the net cost of the universal service obligation including the ‘reasonable profit’ of the provider of that service, fixed at the rate of return on equity capital that would be required by an undertaking comparable to the universal service provider considering whether or not to provide the service of general economic interest for the whole duration of the period of entrustment, taking into account the level of risk.
2.

On a proper interpretation of Article 1(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2010/13, assessment of the principal purpose of a service making videos available offered in the electronic version of a newspaper must focus on whether that service as such has content and form which is independent of that of the journalistic activity of the operator of the website at issue, and is not merely an indissociable complement to that activity, in particular as a result of the links between the audiovisual offer and the offer in text form. That assessment is a matter for the referring court.
4.

Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the defendant in an action relating to the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of an act must show that the law governing that act (lex causae), taken as a whole, does not allow for that act to be challenged. The national court before which such an action is brought may rule that it is for the applicant to establish the existence of a provision or principle of the lex causae on the basis of which that act can be challenged only where that court considers that the defendant has first proven, in accordance with the rules generally applicable under its national rules of procedure, that the act at issue cannot be challenged on the basis of the lex causae.
4.

The meaning of the word ‘dydis’, used in the Lithuanian language version of the final subparagraph of Article 1c(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy, which was inserted into the regulation by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded is the same as that of the word ‘lygis’, used in the Lithuanian language version of the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009.
1)

Declares that, by maintaining in force provisions according to which interest payable on debts backed by Belgian securities are subject to the payment of withholding tax when the securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in another Member State of the European Union other than the Kingdom of Belgium or in a third State party to the EEA Agreement, of 2 May 1992, although that interest in exempted from withholding tax where those securities are deposited or registered in an account in a financial institution established in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.
2.

Articles 10(4) and 15(1), (2)(a) and (3) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits, in all respects, a license to trade as a chimney sweep to a particular geographical area, if that legislation does not seek to attain, in a consistent and systematic manner, the objective of public health protection, which is a matter to be determined by the national court. Article 15(4) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as not precluding such legislation where fire safety regulation tasks are classified as tasks connected with a service of general economic interest, provided that the territorial restriction imposed is necessary and proportionate to the performance of those tasks under economically viable conditions. It is for the national court to carry out that assessment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v A1 Telekom Austria AG

(Case C-326/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Users’ rights - Right of subscribers to terminate their contract without penalty - Changes to charges under terms of the contract - Increase in charges in line with increase in the consumer price index))

(2016/C 038/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Defendant: A1 Telekom Austria AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a change in charges for the provision of electronic communications networks or services, resulting from the operation of a price adjustment clause contained in the standard terms and conditions applied by an undertaking providing such services, the term providing that such a change applies in accordance with changes in an objective consumer price index compiled by a public institution, does not constitute a ‘modification to the contractual conditions’ within the meaning of that provision, which grants the subscriber the right to withdraw from the contract without penalty.

(1) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/13

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer v Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg

(Case C-453/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 5 - Meaning of ‘equivalent benefits’ - Equal treatment of old-age benefits of two Member States of the European Economic Area - National legislation taking into account old-age benefits received in other Member States for the purpose of calculating social security contributions))

(2016/C 098/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer

Respondent: Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg

Other party to the proceedings: Rudolf Mathis

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(a) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, old-age benefits provided under an occupational pension scheme of one Member State and those provided under a statutory pension scheme of another Member State — both schemes being within the scope of that regulation — are equivalent benefits within the meaning of that provision, where both categories of benefits have the same aim of ensuring that their recipients maintain a standard of living commensurate with that which they enjoyed prior to retirement.

(1) OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.
1.

Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 107/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008, read in conjunction with the annex thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits the use of the claim ‘very low in sodium/salt’ and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer as regards natural mineral waters and other waters. Article 9(2) of Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes packaging, labels or advertising for natural mineral waters from displaying claims or indications suggesting to the consumer that the waters concerned are low in sodium or salt or are suitable for a low-sodium diet where the total sodium content, in all the chemical forms present, is equal to or more than 20 mg/l.
1.

Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the possible application of Article 1(2) of the directive, seamen living in a Member State who were engaged in that State by a company with its registered office in a non-member country but its actual head office in that Member State to work as employees on board a cruise ship owned by the company and flying the flag of the non-member country under an employment contract designating the law of the non-member country as the law applicable must, after the company has been declared insolvent by a court of the Member State concerned in accordance with the law of that State, be eligible for the protection conferred by the directive as regards their outstanding wage claims against the company.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesa — Latvia) — ‘Ostas celtnieks’ SIA v Talsu novada pašvaldība, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs

(Case C-234/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Economic and financial standing - Technical and/or professional ability - Articles 47(2) and 48(3) - Tender specifications laying down the obligation for a tenderer to conclude a cooperation agreement or to set up a partnership with the entities on whose capacities it relies))

(2016/C 098/06)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Ostas celtnieks’ SIA

Defendant: Talsu novada pašvaldība, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a contracting authority, in the tender specifications relating to the award of a public contract, from imposing on a tenderer which relies on the capacities of other entities the obligation, before the contract is awarded, to conclude a cooperation agreement with those entities or to form a partnership with them.

(1) OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.
1.

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 552/2009 of 22 June 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which requires an importer of chemical products to register those products with the competent national authority when that importer is already under an obligation under that regulation to register those same products with the European Chemicals Agency, provided that that registration with the competent national authority does not constitute a pre-condition to the placing of those products on the market, it concerns information different from that required by that regulation and contributes to the achievement of the objectives pursued by that regulation, in particular those of ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment and the free movement of such substances in the internal market, in particular, by the implementation of a system of controls of the safe management of such products in the Member State concerned and the evaluation of that management, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/4

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Portmeirion Group UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-232/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 - Validity - Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China - Product concerned - Product under consideration - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 156/04)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Portmeirion Group UK Ltd

Respondent: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
1.

On a proper construction of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 and from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, a beverage, such as Ferm Fruit, which is obtained through fermentation of an apple concentrate and is designed to be consumed either undiluted or as a base in other beverages, being neutral in terms of colour, smell and taste as a result of purification (including ultrafiltration) and having an alcoholic strength by volume, without the addition of distilled alcohol, of 16 % falls under heading 2208 of that nomenclature.