do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-495/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova (Romania) lodged on 14 August 2017 — Cartrans Spedition Srl v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Prahova, Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice București — Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii
Date: 2017-08-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, carriage of goods, customs transit, export licence, tax exemption, transport document








C_2017369EN.01000601.xml










30.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova (Romania) lodged on 14 August 2017 — Cartrans Spedition Srl v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Prahova, Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice București — Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii
(Case C-495/17)
(2017/C 369/07)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Prahova

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cartrans Spedition SRL

Defendants: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Prahova, Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice București — Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii

Questions referred







1.


For the purposes of the VAT exemption for transport operations and services relating to the export of goods, in accordance with Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, does a TIR carnet certified by the customs authorities of the country of destination constitute a document which proves that the goods transported were indeed exported, taking into account the procedure for such a customs transit document laid down in the Transit Manual (TIR procedure) No TAXUD/1873/2007 by the Customs Code Committee — Transit section, Directorate-General Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commission?










2.


Does Article 153 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax preclude a tax practice which requires a taxpayer to prove that goods transported were exported exclusively by means of a customs export declaration, with the result that the right to deduct VAT for transport services in respect of goods exported will be refused in the absence of that declaration, even if a TIR carnet certified by the customs authorities of the country of destination exists?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-491/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 14 August 2017 — Hoteles Piñero Canarias, S.L. v Keefe (by his litigation friend Eyton)
Date: 2017-08-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: insurance claim, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, private international law, third-party insurance








C_2017347EN.01001802.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 14 August 2017 — Hoteles Piñero Canarias, S.L. v Keefe (by his litigation friend Eyton)
(Case C-491/17)
(2017/C 347/24)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Hoteles Piñero Canarias, S.L.

Respondent: Keefe (by his litigation friend Eyton)

Questions referred







1)


Is it a requirement of Article 11.3 (1) that the injured person's claim against the policy holder/insured involves a matter relating to insurance in the sense that it raises a question about the validity or effect of the policy?










2)


Is it a requirement of Article 11.3 that there is a risk of inconsistent judgments unless joinder is permitted?










3)


Does the court have a discretion whether or not to permit joinder of a claim which falls within Article 11.3?






(1)  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)
Case C-494/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’Appello di Trento (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2017 — Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR v Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti
Date: 2017-08-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: framework agreement, teacher, temporary employment, work contract








C_2017374EN.01001802.xml










6.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’Appello di Trento (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2017 — Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR v Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti
(Case C-494/17)
(2017/C 374/26)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’Appello di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR

Cross-appellant: Fabio Rossato

Respondent: Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti

Question referred

Must clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999, be interpreted as precluding the application of Article 1(95), (131) and (132) of Law No 107 of 2015 of the Italian State, which provides for the conversion of temporary teachers’ fixed-term contracts into contracts of indefinite duration with respect to the future, without retroactive effect and without compensation for damage, as measures that are proportionate, sufficiently effective and a sufficient deterrent to ensure that the measures laid down in the Framework Agreement are fully effective as regards breach of the agreement resulting from abusive repeated renewal of fixed-term contracts during the period prior to that in which the measures set out in the provisions in question are intended to have legal effect?


(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).