do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-691/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 11 December 2017 — PORR Építési Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
Date: 2017-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, invoicing, principle of proportionality, tax relief








C_2018112EN.01001302.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 11 December 2017 — PORR Építési Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-691/17)
(2018/C 112/18)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: PORR Építési Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred







(1)


Must the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC, (1) in particular the principles of proportionality, fiscal neutrality and effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding a practice whereby, in circumstances not involving tax fraud, the national tax authorities, when calculating the tax, refuse the right to deduct that may be exercised on the basis of a VAT invoice issued in accordance with the ordinary taxation regime, because they consider that the invoice for the transaction ought to have been issued in accordance with the reverse charge procedure, and fail, before refusing the right to deduct, to examine






—


whether the issuer of the invoice can reimburse the recipient of the invoice the amount of VAT paid in error, or










—


whether the issuer of the invoice may lawfully (within the national legal framework) correct and regularise that invoice, and in this way obtain from the tax authorities reimbursement of the tax paid by him in error?














(2)


Must the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC, in particular the provisions of proportionality, fiscal neutrality and effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding a practice whereby the national tax authorities, when calculating the tax, refuses the right to deduct that may be exercised on the basis of a VAT invoice issued in accordance with the ordinary taxation regime, because they consider that the invoice for the transaction ought to have been issued in accordance with the reverse charge procedure, and whereby those authorities, when charging the tax, do not order the recipient of the invoice to be reimbursed the tax paid in error, even though the issuer of the invoice has paid the amount of the VAT in those invoices to the revenue authorities?






(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-692/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2017-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, claim, contract, interest, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2018094EN.01000801.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-692/17)
(2018/C 094/10)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

For the purposes of application of the exemption provided for in Article 135(1)(b) of the VAT Directive (1), do the terms ‘granting’, ‘negotiation’ and ‘management of credit’ encompass the assignment for consideration to a third party of the positon held by a taxable person liable for VAT in enforcement proceedings for recovery of a debt, recognised by a judgment and resulting from the breach of a property agency agreement, plus VAT at the rate in force on the date of payment and the default interest already accrued or which may accrue until full payment?


(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 T-249/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2017 — JT v EUIPO — Carrasco Pirard (QUILAPAYÚN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark QUILAPAYÚN — Relative ground for refusal — Well-known mark — Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proprietor of the mark)
Date: 2017-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, artistic profession, cultural event, education, magnetic medium, music, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018032EN.01002001.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/20





Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2017 — JT v EUIPO — Carrasco Pirard (QUILAPAYÚN)
(Case T-249/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark QUILAPAYÚN - Relative ground for refusal - Well-known mark - Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proprietor of the mark))
(2018/C 032/26)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: JT (represented by: A. Mena Valenzuela, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Eduardo Carrasco Pirard (Santiago, Chili) and the 7 other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO whose names are listed in the Annex to the judgment

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2015 (Case R 354/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, JT, and, on the other, Mr Carrasco Pirard and the other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal whose names are listed in the Annex.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 March 2015 (Case R 354/2014-2);










2.


Dismisses the remaining heads of claim in the application;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
Case C-697/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Infrastrutture e telecomunicazioni per l’Italia SpA (Infratel Italia SpA)
Date: 2017-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, economic concentration, holding company, inter-company agreement, invitation to tender, merger control, tendering








C_2018112EN.01001401.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Infrastrutture e telecomunicazioni per l’Italia SpA (Infratel Italia SpA)
(Case C-697/17)
(2018/C 112/19)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Telecom Italia SpA

Respondents: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Infrastrutture e telecomunicazioni per l’Italia SpA (Infratel Italia SpA)

Question referred

Must the first sentence of Article 28(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) be interpreted as requiring pre-qualified operators and those who submit tenders in the context of a restricted procedure to be completely legally and economically identical and, in particular, must that provision be interpreted as precluding the conclusion of an agreement between the holding companies which control two pre-qualified operators at some point between pre-qualification and the submission of tenders, where: (a) that agreement has as its purpose and effect (inter alia) the completion of a merger by the absorption of one of those pre-qualified undertakings into the other (a transaction which, however, is authorised by the European Commission); (b) the effects of that merger were fully realised after the submission of a tender by the absorbing undertaking (for which reason, at the time the tender was submitted, its composition had not changed from that which existed at the time of pre-qualification); (c) the undertaking then absorbed (whose composition had not changed at the time of the deadline for submitting tenders) has however stated that it is not taking part in the restricted procedure, probably in implementation of the contractual schedule established by the agreement drawn up between the holding companies?


(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Date: 2017-12-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, economic sanctions, election, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, trade restriction




L_2017328EN.01001901.xml










12.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 328/19








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/2282
of 11 December 2017
         
amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 20 December 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/788/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).












(2)


On 12 December 2016, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 (2) in response to the obstruction of the electoral process and the related human rights violations in the DRC. Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 amended Decision 2010/788/CFSP and introduced autonomous restrictive measures under Article 3(2) thereof.












(3)


On the basis of a review of the measures referred to in Article 3(2) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 12 December 2018.












(4)


Decision 2010/788/CFSP should be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 9 of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:


‘2.   The measures referred to in Article 3(2) shall apply until 12 December 2018. They shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that their objectives have not been met.’.




Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 11 December 2017.


For the Council


The President

F. MOGHERINI
            





(1)  Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repealing Common Position 2008/369/CFSP (OJ L 336, 21.12.2010, p. 30).

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 336I, 12.12.2016, p. 7).
Case T-804/17: Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two facing arches)
Date: 2017-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, education, medical device, pharmaceutical product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, teaching materials, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2018042EN.01004401.xml










5.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/44





Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two facing arches)
(Case T-804/17)
(2018/C 042/61)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark — Application for registration No 15 625 437

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2017 in Case R 1887/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-125/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2017 — Léon Van Parys v Commission (Customs union — Imports of bananas from Equador — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Application for the remission of import duties — Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Reasonable time)
Date: 2017-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ecuador, customs duties, exemption from customs duties, import (EU), tropical fruit








C_2018032EN.01002601.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/26





Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2017 — Léon Van Parys v Commission
(Case T-125/16) (1)

((Customs union - Imports of bananas from Equador - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Application for the remission of import duties - Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Reasonable time))
(2018/C 032/34)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Firma Léon Van Parys NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren, R. Verbeke and J. Auwerx, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, B.-R. Killmann and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 95 final of 20 January 2016 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is justified with regard to a debtor and is in part justified in the particular case of another debtor but in another part not justified with regard to that particular debtor, and modifying Commission Decision C(2010) 2858 of 6 May 2010, and, second, for a declaration that Article 909 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) had effect with regard to the applicant following the judgment of 19 March 2013, Firma Van Parys v Commission (T-324/10, EU:T:2013:136).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Article 1(4) of Commission Decision C(2016) 95 final of 20 January 2016 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is justified with regard to a debtor and is in part justified in the particular case of another debtor but in another part not justified with regard to that particular debtor, and modifying Commission Decision C(2010) 2858 of 6 May 2010;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Firma Léon Van Parys NV.






(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.
Case T-800/17: Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Brown Street Holdings v EUIPO — Enesan (FIGHT LIFE)
Date: 2017-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, cultural event, registered trade mark, sporting event, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2018042EN.01004101.xml










5.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/41





Action brought on 11 December 2017 — Brown Street Holdings v EUIPO — Enesan (FIGHT LIFE)
(Case T-800/17)
(2018/C 042/57)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Brown Street Holdings Ltd (Auckland, New Zealand) (represented by: C. Hufnagel, M. Kleespies, A. Bender and J. Clayton-Chen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Enesan AG (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration No 1 112 642 designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘FIGHT LIFE’

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 in Case R 36/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-694/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Pillar Securitisation Sàrl v Hildur Arnadottir
Date: 2017-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: business activity, consumer, consumer credit, jurisdiction, private international law








C_2018063EN.01000902.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Pillar Securitisation Sàrl v Hildur Arnadottir
(Case C-694/17)
(2018/C 063/13)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pillar Securitisation Sàrl

Defendant: Hildur Arnadottir

Question referred

In the context of a credit agreement which, by reason of the total amount of the loan, does not come within the scope of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (1) can a person be regarded as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Article 15 of the Lugano Convention of 30 October 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in the absence of any national legislation applying the provisions of that directive to areas which do not come within its scope, on the ground that the contract was concluded for a purpose that can be regarded as a purpose other than that person’s professional activity?


(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.