do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-467/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Brigitte Schlömp v Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of Freedom, Security and Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Lugano II Convention — Lis pendens — Concept of court — Arbitration authority under Swiss law, responsible for the conciliation procedure prior to all substantive proceedings)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Switzerland, arbitration, court of arbitration, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, private international law








C_2018072EN.01002201.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/22





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Brigitte Schlömp v Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall
(Case C-467/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of Freedom, Security and Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Lugano II Convention - Lis pendens - Concept of court - Arbitration authority under Swiss law, responsible for the conciliation procedure prior to all substantive proceedings))
(2018/C 072/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Brigitte Schlömp

Defendant: Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 27 and 30 the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, which was approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of lis pendens, the date on which a mandatory arbitration procedure was lodged before an arbitration authority under Swiss law is the date on which a ‘court’ is deemed to be seised.


(1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.
Joined Cases C-504/16 and C-613/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Deister Holding AG, formerly Traxx Investments N.V. (C-504/16), Juhler Holding A/S (C-613/16) v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (References for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Freedom of establishment — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 1(2) — Article 5 — Parent company — Holding company — Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company — Exemption — Fraud, tax evasion and abuse — Presumption)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital gains tax, corporation tax, direct tax, holding company, nationality of legal persons, parent company, right of establishment, tax evasion, tax exemption, tax law








C_2018072EN.01002401.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/24





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Deister Holding AG, formerly Traxx Investments N.V. (C-504/16), Juhler Holding A/S (C-613/16) v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
(Joined Cases C-504/16 and C-613/16) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 1(2) - Article 5 - Parent company - Holding company - Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company - Exemption - Fraud, tax evasion and abuse - Presumption))
(2018/C 072/31)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Deister Holding AG, formerly Traxx Investments N.V. (C-504/16), Juhler Holding A/S (C-613/16)

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2006/98/EC of 20 November 2006 and Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, where persons have holdings in a non-resident parent company who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption from withholding tax if they received the dividends from a resident subsidiary directly, denies, provided one of the conditions set by that legislation is satisfied, relief from tax on income from capital tax on distributions of profits to that parent company.


(1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.
Case C-462/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90(1) — Reduction of the price under conditions determined by the Member States — Reduction of the taxable amount — Principles laid down in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400) — Discounts granted to private medical insurance funds)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, equal treatment, health insurance, pharmaceutical industry, supply, tax relief, wholesale trade








C_2018072EN.01002101.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/21





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-462/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90(1) - Reduction of the price under conditions determined by the Member States - Reduction of the taxable amount - Principles laid down in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400) - Discounts granted to private medical insurance funds))
(2018/C 072/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey

Defendant: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

In the light of the principles defined by the Court in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400, paragraphs 28 and 31), regarding the determination of the taxable amount for value added tax and having regard to the principle of equal treatment under EU law, Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the discount granted, under national law, by a pharmaceutical company to a private health insurance company results, for the purposes of that article, in a reduction of the taxable amount in favour of that pharmaceutical company, where it supplies medicinal products via wholesalers to pharmacies which make supplies to persons covered by private health insurance that reimburses the purchase price of the medicinal products to persons it insures.


(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
Case C-529/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt München (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Customs Code — Article 29 — Determination of the customs value — Cross-border transactions between related companies — Advance transfer pricing arrangement — Agreed transfer price composed of an amount initially invoiced and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common customs tariff, customs valuation, transfer pricing








C_2018072EN.01002501.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/25





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt München
(Case C-529/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Customs Code - Article 29 - Determination of the customs value - Cross-border transactions between related companies - Advance transfer pricing arrangement - Agreed transfer price composed of an amount initially invoiced and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period))
(2018/C 072/33)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 28 to 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not permit an agreed transaction value, composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, to form the basis for the customs value, without it being possible to know at the end of the accounting period whether that adjustment would be made up or down.


(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Case C-372/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 — Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation — Recognition of a private divorce obtained before a religious court in a third country — Scope of that regulation)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: divorce, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial separation, private international law








C_2018072EN.01001602.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/16





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch
(Case C-372/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 - Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation - Recognition of a private divorce obtained before a religious court in a third country - Scope of that regulation))
(2018/C 072/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Soha Sahyouni

Defendant: Raja Mamisch

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation must be interpreted as meaning that a divorce resulting from a unilateral declaration made by one of the spouses before a religious court, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not come within the substantive scope of that regulation.


(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.
Case C-334/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Albacete, Spain) — José Luis Núñez Torreiro v AIG Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, formerly Chartis Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, Unión Española de Entidades Aseguradoras y Reaseguradoras (Unespa) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 3, first paragraph — Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ — National legislation excluding the driving of motor vehicles on roads and terrain that are not ‘suitable for use by motor vehicles’, with the exception of those which, though not suitable, are nonetheless ‘ordinarily so used’)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damage, motor vehicle insurance, road network, third-party insurance








C_2018072EN.01001502.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/15





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Albacete, Spain) — José Luis Núñez Torreiro v AIG Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, formerly Chartis Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, Unión Española de Entidades Aseguradoras y Reaseguradoras (Unespa)
(Case C-334/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3, first paragraph - Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ - National legislation excluding the driving of motor vehicles on roads and terrain that are not ‘suitable for use by motor vehicles’, with the exception of those which, though not suitable, are nonetheless ‘ordinarily so used’))
(2018/C 072/19)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Albacete

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: José Luis Núñez Torreiro

Defendants: AIG Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, formerly Chartis Europe Limited, Sucursal en España, Unión Española de Entidades Aseguradoras y Reaseguradoras (Unespa)

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes it possible to exclude from compulsory insurance cover injuries and damage that result from the driving of motor vehicles on roads or terrain that are not ‘suitable for use by motor vehicles’, with the exception of roads or terrain which, although not suitable for that purpose, are nonetheless ‘ordinarily so used’.


(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/236 of 20 December 2017 correcting the Estonian language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/654 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1628 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to technical and general requirements relating to emission limits and type-approval for internal combustion engines for non-road mobile machinery
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Translation, European Commission
Subjects: approval, combustion gases, engine, environmental standard, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, pollution control measures, technical specification, technical standard








L_2018050EN.01000101.xml










22.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 50/1








            COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2018/236
of 20 December 2017
         
correcting the Estonian language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/654 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1628 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to technical and general requirements relating to emission limits and type-approval for internal combustion engines for non-road mobile machinery


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1628 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on requirements relating to gaseous and particulate pollutant emission limits and type-approval for internal combustion engines for non-road mobile machinery, amending Regulations (EU) No 1024/2012 and (EU) No 167/2013, and amending and repealing Directive 97/68/EC (1), and in particular Article 24(11), Article 25(4)(a), (b) and (c), Article 26(6), Article 34(9), Article 42(4), Article 43(5) and Article 48 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The Estonian language version of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/654 (2) contains several errors in Annexes I to VI that render those Annexes illegible.












(2)


The Estonian language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/654 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

(does not concern the English language)



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




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 December 2017.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 252, 16.9.2016, p. 53.

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/654 of 19 December 2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1628 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to technical and general requirements relating to emission limits and type-approval for internal combustion engines for non-road mobile machinery (OJ L 102, 13.4.2017, p. 1).




ANNEX

(does not concern the English language)
Case C-102/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Belgium) — Vaditrans BVBA v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Road transport — Driver’s rest periods — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Article 8(6) and (8) — Whether it is possible to take daily rest periods and reduced weekly rest periods away from base and in a vehicle — Exclusion of regular weekly rest periods)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, driving period, humanisation of work, legality, road transport, vehicle, weekly rest period








C_2018072EN.01000801.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/8





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Belgium) — Vaditrans BVBA v Belgische Staat
(Case C-102/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Driver’s rest periods - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 8(6) and (8) - Whether it is possible to take daily rest periods and reduced weekly rest periods away from base and in a vehicle - Exclusion of regular weekly rest periods))
(2018/C 072/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vaditrans BVBA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 8(6) and (8) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as meaning that a driver may not take the regular weekly rest periods referred to in Article 8(6) in his vehicle.










2.


Consideration of the second question referred has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Regulation No 561/2006, having regard to the principle of legality in criminal proceedings, enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.
Case C-442/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Florea Gusa v Minister for Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Person no longer working in a self-employed capacity — Retention of the status of self-employed person — Right of residence — Legislation of a Member State restricting eligibility for a jobseeker’s allowance to persons who have a right of residence on the territory of that Member State)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: job application, migrant worker, residence permit, self-employed person, self-employment, unemployment insurance








C_2018072EN.01002002.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/20





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Florea Gusa v Minister for Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General
(Case C-442/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Person no longer working in a self-employed capacity - Retention of the status of self-employed person - Right of residence - Legislation of a Member State restricting eligibility for a jobseeker’s allowance to persons who have a right of residence on the territory of that Member State))
(2018/C 072/26)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Florea Gusa

Respondents: Minister for Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(3)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a national of a Member State retains the status of self-employed person for the purposes of Article 7(1)(a) of that directive where, after having lawfully resided in and worked as a self-employed person in another Member State for approximately four years, that national has ceased that activity, because of a duly recorded absence of work owing to reasons beyond his control, and has registered as a jobseeker with the relevant employment office of the latter Member State.


(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
Case C-364/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Trioplast Industrier AB v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in industrial plastic bags — Formal notice from the European Commission to the appellant for the payment of default interest on the amount of the fine imposed — Action for annulment and for damages)
Date: 2017-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, damages, industrial product, interest, packaging product, sanction (EU)








C_2018072EN.01001601.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/16





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Trioplast Industrier AB v European Commission
(Case C-364/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in industrial plastic bags - Formal notice from the European Commission to the appellant for the payment of default interest on the amount of the fine imposed - Action for annulment and for damages))
(2018/C 072/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Trioplast Industrier AB (represented by: T. Pettersson, F. Sjövall and A. Johansson, advokater)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and P. Rossi, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Trioplast Industrier AB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.