do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-653/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 October 2018 — Unitel Sp. z o.o. w Warszawie v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie
Date: 2018-10-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, export, principle of proportionality, supply, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2019044EN.01001101.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 October 2018 — Unitel Sp. z o.o. w Warszawie v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie
(Case C-653/18)
(2019/C 44/16)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Unitel Sp. z o.o. w Warszawie

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

Questions referred







1.


In the light of Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and of the principles of taxation of consumption, neutrality and proportionality, should the correct national practice be to apply an exemption with the right to deduct (which in Poland means application of a 0 % rate) in each case where both of the following conditions are met:






(a)


the goods have been exported to an unidentified recipient outside the European Union; and










(b)


there is clear evidence that the goods have left the territory of the European Union, and this is not disputed?














2.


Do the provisions of Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Directive 2006/112/EC and the principles of taxation of consumption, neutrality and proportionality preclude a national practice whereby it is assumed that no supply of goods has taken place in the case where the goods have been indubitably exported outside the territory of the European Union, and following their exportation the tax authorities establish in the course of their investigation that the person actually acquiring the goods was not the entity to whom the taxable person issued the invoice documenting the supply, but was another entity unidentified by the authorities, as a result of which the authorities refuse to exempt such a transaction from tax with the right to deduct (which in Poland means application of a 0 % rate)?










3.


In the light of Article 146(1)(a) and (b) and Article 131 of Directive 2006/112/EC and of the principles of taxation of consumption, neutrality and proportionality, should the correct national practice be to apply the domestic rate to the supply of goods where there is clear evidence that the goods have left the territory of the European Union, but the authorities, in the absence of an identified recipient, conclude that no supply of goods has taken place, or should it rather be assumed that no taxable transaction for VAT purposes has taken place at all in those circumstances and therefore that the taxable person is not entitled to deduct input VAT on the purchase of the exported goods under Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-393/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — UD v XB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 8(1) — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Concept of ‘habitual residence of the child’ — Requirement of physical presence — Detention of the mother and child in a third country against the will of the mother — Infringement of the fundamental rights of the mother and child)
Date: 2018-10-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: child, fundamental rights, imprisonment, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, parental responsibility, private international law, residence, third country








C_2018455EN.01001801.xml










17.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/18






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — UD v XB
(Case C-393/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 8(1) - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Concept of ‘habitual residence of the child’ - Requirement of physical presence - Detention of the mother and child in a third country against the will of the mother - Infringement of the fundamental rights of the mother and child))
(2018/C 455/26)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UD

Defendant: XB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted to the effect that a child must have been physically present in a Member State in order to be regarded as habitually resident in that Member State, for the purposes of that provision. Circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, assuming that they are proven, that is to say, first, the fact that the father’s coercion of the mother had the effect of her giving birth to their child in a third country where she has resided with that child ever since, and, secondly, the breach of the mother’s or the child’s rights, do not have any bearing in that regard.


(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Case C-249/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Ryanair Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Concept of taxable person — Holding company — Deduction of input tax — Expenditure for consultancy services received for the purpose of the acquisition of another company’s shares — Acquiring company’s intention to provide management services to the target company — Those services not provided — Right to deduct VAT charged on the services received)
Date: 2018-10-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, provision of services, service, tax relief








C_2018455EN.01001301.xml










17.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/13






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Ryanair Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners
(Case C-249/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Concept of taxable person - Holding company - Deduction of input tax - Expenditure for consultancy services received for the purpose of the acquisition of another company’s shares - Acquiring company’s intention to provide management services to the target company - Those services not provided - Right to deduct VAT charged on the services received))
(2018/C 455/19)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4 and 17 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 must be interpreted as conferring on a company, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which intends to acquire all the shares of another company in order to pursue an economic activity consisting in the provision of management services subject to value added tax (VAT) to that other company, the right to deduct, in full, input VAT paid on expenditure relating to consultancy services provided in the context of a takeover bid, even if ultimately that economic activity was not carried out, provided that the exclusive reason for that expenditure is to be found in the intended economic activity.


(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA's) mission
Date: 2018-10-17
Institutions: European Food Safety Authority
Subjects: EU Member State, consumer protection, food inspection, food safety, institutional cooperation








C_2018375EN.01000301.xml










17.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 375/3






Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA's) mission
(2018/C 375/03)
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1), Article 36(2), provides that the European Food Safety Authority's ‘Management Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Director, shall draw up a list to be made public of competent organisations designated by the Member States which may assist the Authority, either individually or in networks, with its mission.’
The list was first drawn up by EFSA's Managements Board on 19 December 2006, and since then is:






(i)


updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA's Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2));










(ii)


made public on EFSA's website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published; and










(iii)


made available through the Article 36 Search Tool to the organisations, providing contact details and the organisations' specific fields of competence.




This respective information is available on the EFSA website, under the following links:






(i)


the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA's Management Board on [10.10.2018] — [http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/181010];










(ii)


the updated list of competent organisations — http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/assets/art36listg.pdf and










(iii)


Article 36 Search Tool — http://www.efsa.europa.eu/art36/search




EFSA will keep this notification updated, specifically regarding the provided website links.
For more information please contact Cooperation.Article36@efsa.europa.eu


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004 of 23 December 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the network of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority's mission (OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 64).
Case C-648/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 17 October 2018 — Autoritatea națională de reglementare în domeniul energiei (ANRE) v Societatea de Producere a Energiei Electrice în Hidrocentrale Hidroelectrica SA
Date: 2018-10-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, Romania, electrical energy, energy production, export (EU), export restriction, free movement of goods, quantitative restriction








C_2019025EN.01001901.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 17 October 2018 — Autoritatea națională de reglementare în domeniul energiei (ANRE) v Societatea de Producere a Energiei Electrice în Hidrocentrale Hidroelectrica SA
(Case C-648/18)
(2019/C 25/23)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Autoritatea națională de reglementare în domeniul energiei (ANRE)

Respondent: Societatea de Producere a Energiei Electrice în Hidrocentrale Hidroelectrica SA

Question referred

Does Article 35 TFEU preclude an interpretation of Article 23(1) and Article 28(c) of the Legea energiei electrice și a gazelor naturale nr. 123/2012 according to which electricity producers in Romania are obliged to trade all the electricity they produce exclusively on a centralised competitive market in Romania, given that there is the possibility of exporting energy, albeit not directly but through trading companies?
Update of the list of national services responsible for border controls as referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)
Date: 2018-10-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Romania, Schengen Agreement, border control, external border of the EU, foreign national, identity document, residence permit








C_2018375EN.01000501.xml










17.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 375/5






Update of the list of national services responsible for border controls as referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (1)

(2018/C 375/05)
The publication of the list of national services responsible for border controls as referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (2) is based on the information communicated by the Member States to the Commission in conformity with Article 39 of the Schengen Borders Code.
In addition to the publication in the Official Journal, a regular update is available on the website of the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs.
ROMANIA

Replacement of the information published in OJ C 77, 5.4.2007


The national service responsible for border controls: Poliţia de Frontieră Română (Romanian Border Police), Direcția Generală a Vămilor (Directorate-General for Customs).

List of previous publications







 



OJ C 247, 13.10.2006, p. 17.










 



OJ C 77, 5.4.2007, p. 11.










 



OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 1.










 



OJ C 164, 18.7.2007, p. 45.










 



OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 21.










 



OJ C 331, 31.12.2008, p. 15.










 



OJ C 87, 1.4.2010, p. 15.










 



OJ C 180, 21.6.2012, p. 2.










 



OJ C 98, 5.4.2013, p. 2.










 



OJ C 256, 5.9.2013, p. 14.










 



OJ C 360, 10.12.2013, p. 17.










 



OJ C 218, 7.7.2017, p. 19.










 



OJ C 431, 15.12.2017, p. 8.










 



OJ C 345, 27.9.2018, p. 4.






(1)  See the list of previous publications at the end of this update.

(2)  OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1.
Case T-27/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2018 — Jalkh v Parliament (Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision to waive parliamentary immunity — Relation with parliamentary duties — Equal treatment — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectation — Procedure for waiving immunity — Rights of the defence — Abuse of power — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2018-10-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, Member of the European Parliament, criminal procedure, equal treatment, indemnification, parliamentary immunity, principle of legal certainty, rights of the defence








C_2018436EN.01004101.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/41






Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2018 — Jalkh v Parliament
(Case T-27/17) (1)

((Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity - Relation with parliamentary duties - Equal treatment - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectation - Procedure for waiving immunity - Rights of the defence - Abuse of power - Non-contractual liability))
(2018/C 436/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvilliers, France) (represented by: initially J.-P. Le Moigne, then M. Ceccaldi, and finally F. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: Parliament (represented by: initially M. Dean and S. Alonso de León, then S. Alonso de León, N. Gorlitz and S. Syer, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, action brought under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision P8_TA(2016)9429 of the Parliament of 22 November 2016 waiving the applicant’s immunity; and, secondly, action brought under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm which the applicant claimed to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Jean-François Jalkh to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including the costs relating to the application for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.
Case C-503/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2018 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 95/60/EC — Fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene — Refuelling of private pleasure craft)
Date: 2018-10-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: excise duty, fuel tax, infringement of EU law, motor fuel, national implementing measure, pleasure craft, tax relief








C_2018455EN.01001501.xml










17.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 455/15






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2018 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-503/17) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/60/EC - Fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene - Refuelling of private pleasure craft))
(2018/C 455/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, acting as Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that by allowing the use of marked fuel for the purposes of propelling private pleasure craft, even where that fuel is not subject to any exemption from or reduction in excise duty, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 95/60/EC of 27 November 1995 on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene;










2.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Council Decision on the Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories with the European Union including relations between the European on the one hand, and Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark on the other (“Overseas Association Decision”)’ (COM(2018) 461 final)
Date: 2018-10-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Denmark, Greenland, cooperation policy, development aid, financial aid, overseas countries and territories, sustainable development








C_2019062EN.01031101.xml










15.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/311






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Council Decision on the Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories with the European Union including relations between the European on the one hand, and Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark on the other (“Overseas Association Decision”)’
(COM(2018) 461 final)
(2019/C 62/53)






Referral


Commission, 12.7.2018




Legal basis


Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Section for External Relations




Adopted at plenary


17.10.2018




Plenary session No


538




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


207/0/6




Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 538th plenary session of 17 and 18 October 2018 (meeting of 17 October 2018), by 207 votes to 0 with 6 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 17 October 2018.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER