do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-92/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente ‘s-Hertogenbosch v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 5(7)(a) — Taxable transactions — ‘Supplies made for consideration’  — First occupation by a municipal authority of premises built for it on land belonging to it — Activities engaged in as a public authority and as a taxable person)
Date: 2013-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, municipality, real property, tax relief








C_2014409EN.01001001.xml










17.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/10





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente ‘s-Hertogenbosch v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-92/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 5(7)(a) - Taxable transactions - ‘Supplies made for consideration’ - First occupation by a municipal authority of premises built for it on land belonging to it - Activities engaged in as a public authority and as a taxable person))
2014/C 409/13
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gemeente ‘s-Hertogenbosch

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(7)(a) 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 must be interpreted as applying to a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a municipality takes first occupation of a building which it has had built on its own land and of which it intends to use 94 % of the area for its activities as a public authority and 6 % of that area for its activities as a taxable person, including 1 % for exempt activities in respect of which no right to deduct value added tax exists. However, the subsequent use of the building for the activities of the municipality may give rise to a right to deduct the tax paid in respect of the application provided for by that provision only in the proportion corresponding to its use for the purposes of the taxable transactions, pursuant to Article 17(5) of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.
Case C-92/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2013 — Gemeente ’s-Hertogenbosch v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2013-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, local authority, public building, tax, tax relief








C_2013147EN.01001101.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2013 — Gemeente ’s-Hertogenbosch v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-92/13)
2013/C 147/19
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gemeente ’s-Hertogenbosch

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Should Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that supplies are made for consideration in a situation in which a municipality takes first occupation of a building which it has had built on its own land and which it is to use at the rate of 94 % for its activities as a public authority and at the rate of 6 % for its activities as a taxable person, including 1 % for exempt activities to which no right of deduction applies?


(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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).
Case T-117/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 in Case F-109/11, Lebedef v Commission
Date: 2013-02-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, job description, legal basis, union representative








C_2013147EN.01002001.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/20





Appeal brought on 25 February 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 in Case F-109/11, Lebedef v Commission
(Case T-117/13 P)
2013/C 147/36
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order of the CST of 12 December 2012 in Case F-109/11 Lebedef v Commission seeking the annulment of the appellant’s appraisal report for the period 1.1.2009 — 31.12.2009 and, more specifically, the part of the report drafted by EUROSTAT for the same period;










—


uphold the appellant’s form of order sought at first instance;










—


alternatively, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;










—


make an order as to costs and order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six pleas in law, of which the first, second, third and six are essentially the same as or similar to those relied on in Case T-116/13 P Lebedef v Commission.
The fourth plea in law alleges an error of law in that, according to the appellant, the CST concluded that the report covering his activities in a professional or trade union organisation (OSP report) which should appear only as a document attached to the report concerning the appellant’s duties at the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat) (paragraphs 68 to 70 of the order under appeal).
The fifth plea in law alleges an error of law in that the appellant claims that the CST held that the appellant wished to challenge his appraisal reports prior to 2009 and the Commission decision not to promote him (paragraphs 74 and 75 of the order under appeal).
Case C-91/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2013 — Essent Energie Productie BV; other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid
Date: 2013-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Netherlands, Netherlands OCT, migrant worker, work permit








C_2013147EN.01001002.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2013 — Essent Energie Productie BV; other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid
(Case C-91/13)
2013/C 147/18
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Essent Energie Productie BV

Other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

Questions referred







1.


In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, can a principal contractor which must, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Wet arbeid vreemdelingen 1994 (1994 Netherlands Law on the employment of foreign nationals), be regarded as the employer of the Turkish workers concerned rely, as against the Netherlands authorities, on the standstill rule in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 (1) or on the standstill rule in Article 41 of the Additional Protocol? (2)











2.








(a)


Must the standstill rule in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 or the standstill rule in Article 41 of the Additional Protocol be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a prohibition, as referred to in Article 2(1) of the Wet arbeid vreemdelingen 1994, for principal contractors to have work carried out in the Netherlands by workers who are nationals of a third country, in this case Turkey, without a work permit, if those workers are in the employ of a German undertaking and work for the principal contractor in the Netherlands via a Netherlands user undertaking?










(b)


Is it significant in that regard that an employer was already prohibited, before both the standstill rule in Article 41 of the Additional Protocol and the standstill rule in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 entered into force, from having work carried out by a foreign national without a work permit under a contract of employment and that that prohibition was extended, likewise before the standstill rule in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 entered into force, to user undertakings to which foreign nationals are posted?










(1)  Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the EEC-Turkey Association.

(2)  Signed in Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed by means of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760.72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1972 L 293, p. 1).