do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-552/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mönchengladbach (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Gisbert Thöne v MF Global UK Ltd and Frank Kucksdorf
Date: 2011-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, interpretation of the law, judicial proceedings








C_2012065EN.01000203.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/2





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mönchengladbach (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Gisbert Thöne v MF Global UK Ltd and Frank Kucksdorf
(Case C-552/11)
2012/C 65/04
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Mönchengladbach

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gisbert Thöne

Defendant: MF Global UK Ltd and Frank Kucksdorf
This Case was removed from the Register of the Court by Order of the Court of 8 December 2011.
Case C-550/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 November 2011 — ET ‘PIGI — P. Dimova’ — P. Dimova v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
Date: 2011-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, tax relief, theft








C_2012013EN.01000801.xml










14.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/8





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 November 2011 — ET ‘PIGI — P. Dimova’ — P. Dimova v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-550/11)
2012/C 13/15
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ET ‘PIGI — P. Dimova’

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

Questions referred







1.


In which cases is it to be assumed that there is a theft of property duly proved or confirmed within the meaning of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 (1), and is it necessary in that regard that the identity of the perpetrator has been established and that that person has already been finally convicted?










2.


Depending on the answer to the first question: does the expression ‘theft of property duly proved or confirmed’ within the meaning of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 cover a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which a pre-litigation procedure for theft was initiated against person or persons unknown, a fact that is not disputed by the revenue collection department and on the basis of which it has been assumed that there is a shortfall?










3.


In the light of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112, are national legal provisions such as those laid down in Articles 79(3) and 80(2) of the Law on VAT and a tax practice such as that adopted in the main proceedings permissible, under which the input tax deduction made on the acquisition of goods which are subsequently stolen must be adjusted, if it is assumed that the State has not made use of the power afforded to it to provide expressly for adjustments to the input tax deducted in the case of theft?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-554/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 November 2011 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 21 September 2011 in Case T-141/05 RENV Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission
Date: 2011-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative contract, administrative transparency








C_2012025EN.01003203.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/32






Appeal brought on 2 November 2011 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 21 September 2011 in Case T-141/05 RENV Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission
(Case C-554/11 P)
(2012/C 25/60)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






(a)


set aside the order of 21 September 2011 and refer the case back to the General Court, directing it to carry out a new assessment after delivery of the judgment in Case T-300/10;
in the alternative, rule on the case itself;










(b)


order the Commission to pay the costs which arose out of the interlocutory proceedings to which the order under appeal relates and the costs of the appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is against the order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 in Case T-141/05 RENV, by which that Court held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on proceedings which the appellant and applicant at first instance had brought against a decision of the Commission in 2005. The original action was directed against the Commission’s refusal to grant the appellant full access to the file in respect of the contract LIEN 97-2011.
By the appeal the appellant criticises the order of the General Court on the grounds of incorrect application of the rules of procedure, in particular the inadequate coordination of the proceedings in Cases T-36/10 and T-141/05 RENV, by which its interests were, according to the appellant, seriously undermined. In addition, the General Court made an incorrect decision on costs to the appellant’s disadvantage.
Case C-549/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven Administrativen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Burgas pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite v Orfey Balgaria EOOD
Date: 2011-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, provision of services, tax collection, urban construction








C_2012013EN.01000701.xml










14.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven Administrativen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Burgas pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite v Orfey Balgaria EOOD
(Case C-549/11)
2012/C 13/14
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven Administrativen Sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Burgas pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

Defendant: Orfey Balgaria EOOD

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit a derogation where the chargeable event relating to the performance of work for the construction of certain individual properties in a building occurs before the actual performance of the construction work and that that (chargeable event) is linked to the time of the occurrence of the chargeable event relating to the transaction to be performed in return, which consists in the establishment of a building right relating to other properties in that building, which also forms the consideration for the construction work?










2.


Is national legislation which provides that, whenever the consideration is fully or partly expressed as goods and services, the taxable amount for the transaction is the open market value of the goods or services supplied, compatible with Articles 73 and 80 of Directive 2006/112?










3.


Is Article 65 of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit VAT to be charged on the value of a payment on account in cases where the payment is not made in the form of money, or is that provision to be interpreted broadly, the assumption being that VAT is also chargeable in such cases and that it is to be charged at the level of the financial equivalent of the transaction performed in return?










4.


If, in the third question, the second variant given is correct, can the building right established in the present case be regarded, in view of the specific circumstances, as a payment on account within the meaning of Article 65 of Directive 2006/112?










5.


Do Articles 63, 65 and 73 of Directive 2006/112 have direct effect?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).