ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/13

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — Rusedespred OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-138/12) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 203 - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Refund to the supplier of tax paid where the recipient under an exempt transaction is refused a right of deduction)

2013/C 156/20

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rusedespred OOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and equal treatment — Right to deduct input tax — Right of a supplier of goods to claim a refund of tax unduly paid where the right of the recipient of the goods to deduct the tax has been refused because the supply was exempt from tax under national law

Operative part of the judgment

1. The principle of the neutrality of value added tax, as given specific definition by the case-law relating to Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding a tax authority from refusing, on the basis of a provision of national law intended to transpose that article, the supplier of an exempt supply the refund of value added tax invoiced in error to a customer on the ground that the supplier had not corrected the erroneous invoice, in circumstances where that authority had definitively refused the customer the right to deduct that value added tax and such definitive refusal results in the system for correction provided for under national law no longer being applicable;

2. The principle of the neutrality of value added tax, as given specific definition by the case-law relating to Article 203 of Directive 2006/112, may be relied on by a taxable person in order to contest a provision of national law that makes the refund of value added tax invoiced in error conditional on the correction of the incorrect invoice, in circumstances where the right to deduct that value added tax has definitively been refused and such definitive refusal results in the system for correction provided for under national law no longer being applicable.

(1) OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/33

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Linz

(Case C-219/12) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 4(1) and (2) - Concept of ‘economic activities’ - Deduction of input tax - Operation of a photovoltaic installation on the roof of a house which is used as a dwelling - Supply to the network - Remuneration - Electricity production lower than consumption)

2013/C 225/56

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

Defendant: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Linz

In the presence of: Thomas Fuchs

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 4 of 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Concept of ‘economic activity’ — Photovoltaic installation for electricity production near a private dwelling without a power storage unit — Sale of the energy produced to a company which resupplies that dwelling with the energy which it requires — Energy production lower than consumption in the long term

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) and (2) of 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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a photovoltaic installation on or adjacent to a house which is used as a dwelling, which is designed such that the electricity produced is (i) always less than the electricity privately consumed by its operator and (ii) supplied to the network in exchange for income on a continuing basis, falls within the concept of ‘economic activities’ as defined in that Article.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/28

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Granada — Spain) — Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200 SL

(Case C-125/12) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 199(1)(g) - Voluntary insolvency proceedings - Person liable for payment of tax - Liability of the person who is the recipient of certain transactions - Concept of ‘compulsory sale procedure’)

2013/C 225/46

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada

Party to the main proceedings

Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200 SL

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada — Interpretation of Article 199(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Persons liable for payment of tax — Taxable person who is the recipient of certain transactions — Concept of ‘the supply of immovable property sold by a judgment debtor in a compulsory sale procedure’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 199(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that every sale of immovable property by a judgment debtor carried out not only in the course of the liquidation of the debtor’s assets but also in the course of insolvency proceedings occurring before such liquidation comes within the concept of a compulsory sale procedure, provided that such a sale is necessary in order either to settle creditors’ claims or to enable the debtor to re-establish its economic or professional activities.

(1) OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/16

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

(Case C-234/12) (1)

(Television broadcasting - Directive 2010/13/EU - Articles 4(1) and 23(1) - Advertising spots - National rule laying down a maximum percentage of broadcasting time which can be dedicated to advertising for pay-TV broadcasters which is lower than that laid down for free-to-air TV broadcasters - Equal treatment - Freedom to provide services)

2013/C 260/26

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sky Italia Srl

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Intervening parties: Reti Televisive Italiane (RTI) SpA, Maria Iaccarino

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Interpretation of Article 4 of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU and of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights — Maximum percentage of broadcasting time which may be devoted to advertising — National legislation laying down a lower maximum percentage for pay-TV channels than for other channels

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), as well as the principle of equal treatment and Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down shorter hourly television advertising limits for pay-TV broadcasters than those set for free-to-air broadcasters, provided that the principle of proportionality is observed, which is a matter for the referring court to assess.

(1) OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/17

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Green Swan Pharmaceuticals CR, a.s. v Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce, ústřední inspektorát

(Case C-299/12) (1)

(Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Nutrition and health claims made on foods - Article 2(2)(6) - ‘Reduction of disease risk claim’ - Article 28(2) - Products bearing trade marks or brand names - Transitional measures)

2013/C 260/29

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Green Swan Pharmaceuticals CR, a.s.

Defendant: Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce, ústřední inspektorát

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Intrepretation of Article 1(3), Article 2(2)(6) and Article 28(2) 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 (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9) — ‘Reduction of disease risk claim’ — Claim on the packaging of a product, stating that ‘the preparation also contains calcium and Vitamin D3, which help to reduce a risk factor in the development of osteoporosis and fractures’

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(2)(6) 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 Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be considered a ‘reduction of disease risk claim’ within the meaning of that provision, a health claim need not necessarily expressly state that the consumption of a category of food, a food or one of its constituents ‘significantly’ reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease.

2. Article 28(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006, as amended by Regulation No 116/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that a commercial communication appearing on the packaging of a food may constitute a trade mark or brand name, within the meaning of that provision, provided that it is protected, as a mark or as a name, by the applicable legislation. It is for the national court to ascertain, having regard to all the legal and factual considerations of the case before it, whether that communication is indeed a trade mark or brand name thus protected.

3. Article 28(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006, as amended by Regulation No 116/2010, must be interpreted as referring only to foods bearing a trade mark or brand name which must be considered a nutrition or health claim within the meaning of that regulation and which, in that form, existed before 1 January 2005.

(1) OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/19

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 of Badajoz — Spain) — Soledad Duarte Hueros v Autociba SA, Automóviles Citroën España SA

(Case C-32/12) (1)

(Directive 1999/44/EC - Rights of the consumer in the event of lack of conformity in a product - Minor nature of that lack of conformity - Rescission of the contract not possible - Powers of the national courts)

2013/C 344/32

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 of Badajoz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Soledad Duarte Hueros

Defendants: Autociba SA, Automóviles Citroën España SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de Primera Instancia — Badajoz — Interpretation of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12) — Rights of the consumer — Product with a minor lack of conformity — No repair of that product — Application for rescission of the sale — Not permissible — No alternative claim seeking an appropriate reduction in the price — Whether a national court can consider of its own motion an appropriate reduction in the price.

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow the national court hearing the dispute to grant of its own motion an appropriate reduction in the price of goods which are the subject of a contract of sale in the case where a consumer who is entitled to such a reduction brings proceedings which are limited to seeking only rescission of that contract and such rescission cannot be granted because the lack of conformity in those goods is minor, even though that consumer is not entitled to refine his initial application or to bring a fresh action to that end.

(1) OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all measures necessary to recover from Ixfin SpA the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market in Article 1 of Commission Decision 2010/359/EC of 28 October 2009 on State aid C 59/07 (ex N 127/06 and NN 13/06) implemented by Italy for Ixfin SpA, and by not having submitted to the European Commission, within the period prescribed, the information listed in Article 4 of that decision, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/14

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Lokman Emrek v Vlado Sabranovic

(Case C-218/12) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 15(1)(c) - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Whether jurisdiction limited to distance contracts - Causal link between the commercial or professional activity directed to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile via an Internet site and the conclusion of the contract)

2013/C 367/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lokman Emrek

Defendant: Vlado Sabranovic

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Saarbrücken — Interpretation of Article 15(1)(c) 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Situation in which a trader operates an internet site ‘directed’ towards the Member State in which the consumer is resident — Need for a causal link between that activity and the conclusion of the contract by the consumer — Possible restriction of jurisdiction over consumer contracts to contracts which have been concluded at a distance

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1)(c) 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 that it does not require the existence of a causal link between the means employed to direct the commercial or professional activity to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile. However, the existence of such a causal link constitutes evidence of the connection between the contract and such activity.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
1.

Declares that, by having failed to adopt all the measures necessary to transpose Articles 4(8), 7(2) and 10(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy and section 1.3 and subsection 1.4.1(i) to (iii) of Annex V thereto, to which Article 8(2) of that directive refers, in respect of the intracommunal river basins outside Catalonia, and Articles 7(2) and 10(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/60 in respect of the intracommunal river basins in Catalonia, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/13

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Jan Sneller v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

(Case C-442/12) (1)

(Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Insured persons’ freedom to choose a lawyer - Clause in the standard terms and conditions of a contract guaranteeing legal assistance in any inquiry or proceedings by one of the insurer’s employees - Costs relating to legal assistance provided by an external legal adviser reimbursed only where the insurer decides that it is necessary to entrust handling of the case to an external legal adviser)

2014/C 9/18

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jan Sneller

Defendant: DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

Re:

Request for a preliminary — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77) — Insured person’s freedom to choose a lawyer

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as precluding a legal expenses insurer which stipulates in its insurance contracts that legal assistance will in principle be provided by its employees from also providing that the costs of legal assistance provided by a lawyer or legal representative chosen freely by the insured person will be covered only if the insurer takes the view that the handling of the case must be subcontracted to an external lawyer;

2. The answer to question 1 will not differ depending on whether or not legal assistance is compulsory under national law in the inquiry or proceedings concerned.

(1) OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrchní soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Proceedings concerning the enforcement of a financial penalty issued against Marián Baláž

(Case C-60/12) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA - Application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties - ‘Court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ - The ‘Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat’ under Austrian law - Nature and scope of the review on the part of the court of the Member State of enforcement)

2014/C 9/07

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Vrchní soud v Praze

Party to the main proceedings

Marián Baláž

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Vrchní soud v Praze — Interpretation of Article 1(a)(iii) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (OJ 2005 L 76, p. 16) — ‘Court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ — ‘Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat’ under Austrian law — Concept of ‘opportunity to have the case tried’ before a court within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision — Scope

Operative part of the judgment

1. The term ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’, set out in Article 1(a)(iii) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, is an autonomous concept of Union law and must be interpreted as covering any court or tribunal which applies a procedure that satisfies the essential characteristics of criminal procedure. The Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in den Ländern (Austria) fulfils those criteria and must for that reason be regarded as coming within the scope of that term.

2. Article 1(a)(iii) of Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that a person is to be regarded as having had the opportunity to have a case tried before a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters in the situation where, prior to bringing his appeal, that person was required to comply with a pre-litigation administrative procedure. Such a court must have full jurisdiction to examine the case as regards both the legal assessment and the factual circumstances.

(1) OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/14

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Walter Vapenik v Josef Thurner

(Case C-508/12) (1)

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European enforcement order for uncontested claims - Requirements for certification as an enforcement order - Situation in which the judgment was given in the Member State of the creditor in a dispute between two persons not engaged in commercial or professional activities)

2014/C 45/25

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Walter Vapenik

Defendant: Josef Thurner

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Salzburg — Interpretation of Article 6(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15) — Conditions for certification as an enforcement order in a decision relating to an uncontested claim — Situation in which the decision has been delivered in the creditor’s Member State in a dispute between two consumers.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to contracts concluded between two persons who are not engaged in commercial or professional activities.

(1) OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.