do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-163/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 April 2013 — Turbo.com BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2013-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, intra-EU trade, tax evasion, tax exemption








C_2013171EN.01001901.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 April 2013 — Turbo.com BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-163/13)
2013/C 171/37
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Turbo.com BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Should the national authorities and judicial bodies, on the basis of the law of the European Union, refuse to apply the VAT exemption in respect of an intra-Community supply where it is established, on the basis of objective evidence, that there was VAT fraud in respect of the goods concerned and that the taxable person knew or should have known that he was participating therein, even if the national law does not make provision under those circumstances for refusing the exemption?
Case C-164/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 April 2013 — Turbo.com Mobile Phone’s BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2013-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, tax evasion, tax relief








C_2013171EN.01001902.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 April 2013 — Turbo.com Mobile Phone’s BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-164/13)
2013/C 171/38
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Turbo.com Mobile Phone’s BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Should the national authorities and judicial bodies, on the basis of the law of the European Union, refuse the right to deduct where it is established, on the basis of objective evidence, that there was VAT fraud in respect of the goods concerned and that the taxable person knew or should have known that he was participating therein, even if the national law does not make provision under those circumstances for refusing the right to deduct?
Case T-190/13: Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg v Commission
Date: 2013-04-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, local government








C_2013156EN.01004902.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/49





Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg v Commission
(Case T-190/13)
2013/C 156/91
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg (Leidschendam-Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: A. de Groot and J.J.M. Sluijs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decision; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2013) 87 of 23 January 2013 on State aid SA.24123 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by the Netherlands — Alleged sale of land below market price by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements and/or of the obligation to state reasons.






—


In the first place the Commission allowed an unreasonably long period of time to elapse before initiating the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, as a result of which the parties were entitled to assume that the agreement at issue was not incompatible with Article 107(1) TFEU.










—


In the second place there were errors and omissions in the Commission’s assessment of the facts.










—


In the third place, the Commission erred in its determination of the facts with regard to financing through State resources.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU.






—


In the first place the Municipality acted as a private undertaking would have done in the same circumstances.










—


In the second place Schouten & De Jong Projectontwikkeling BV together with Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling BV did not obtain any benefit that they would not also have obtained via the market in the ordinary course of business.














3.


Third plea in law, concerning Article 107(3) TFEU. Should the Municipality be found to have granted aid, this should be regarded as being compatible with Article 107(3) TFEU.