do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-28/13 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 2014  — Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP v European Central Bank (ECB) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Content required in the application initiating an appeal)
Date: 2014-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, budget deficit, provision of documents, public debt








C_2014175EN.01001501.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/15





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP v European Central Bank (ECB)
(Case C-28/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Content required in the application initiating an appeal))
2014/C 175/17
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Gabi Thesing, Bloomberg Finance LP (represented by: M. Stephens and R. Lands, Solicitors, and by T. Pitt-Payne QC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: M. López Torres and S. Lambrinoc, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of 29 November 2012 in Case T-590/10 Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP v European Central Bank (ECB), by which the General Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 21 October 2010 refusing to grant the appellants access to two documents concerning public debt and the budgetary deficit

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Ms Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP are ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 101, 6. 4. 2013.
Case C-58/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2014  — Hauptzollamt Hannover v Amazon EU Sàrl
Date: 2014-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, translation








C_2014142EN.01001301.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2014 — Hauptzollamt Hannover v Amazon EU Sàrl
(Case C-58/14)
2014/C 142/16
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Applicant and respondent: Amazon EU Sàrl

Questions referred







1.


Is the description of goods in subheading 8543 7010 of the Combined Nomenclature (1) to be understood as covering only apparatus which have exclusively translation or dictionary functions?










2.


If the first question is to be answered in the negative: Does subheading 8543 7010 of the Combined Nomenclature cover also apparatus the translation or dictionary functions of which are secondary by comparison with their main function (in this case, a reading function)?






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff; Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1).
Case C-33/13: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi — Poland) — Marcin Jagiełło v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive — Right of deduction — Refusal — Invoice issued by a company acting as a front)
Date: 2014-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, distributive trades, fraud, invoicing, provision of services, tax relief








C_2014175EN.01001601.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/16





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi — Poland) — Marcin Jagiełło v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
(Case C-33/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive - Right of deduction - Refusal - Invoice issued by a company acting as a front))
2014/C 175/18
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Marcin Jagiełło

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2), read in conjunction with Article 5(1), and of Article 17(2)(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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Right to deduct input VAT — Refusal to allow a recipient of supplies to deduct VAT in the case where the vendor uses the corporate name of another person — Intentional non-disclosure of the vendor’s own activity — Invoice issued by a person other than the vendor — No need to establish that the purchaser was aware of the fact that the transaction in question was linked to criminal activity or to some other irregularity committed by the vendor or by the body cooperating with it

Operative part of the order

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 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person may not be refused the right to deduct VAT due or paid in respect of goods supplied to him on the ground that, in view of fraud or irregularities committed by the issuer of the invoice for that supply, the supply is considered not to have actually been made by the issuer, unless it is established, on the basis of objective evidence and without requiring of the taxable person checks which are not his responsibility, that that taxable person knew, or should have known, that that supply was connected with VAT fraud — a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 141, 18.05.2013