do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-648/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Reggio Calabria — Italy) — Fortunata Silvia Fontana v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Reggio Calabria (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 273 — Tax adjustment — Method of calculating the taxable amount by extrapolation — Right to deduct VAT — Presumption — Principles of neutrality and proportionality — National law basing the calculation of VAT on presumed turnover)
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, VAT, principle of proportionality, tax law, tax relief, turnover








C_2019025EN.01000301.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/3






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Reggio Calabria — Italy) — Fortunata Silvia Fontana v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Reggio Calabria
(Case C-648/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 273 - Tax adjustment - Method of calculating the taxable amount by extrapolation - Right to deduct VAT - Presumption - Principles of neutrality and proportionality - National law basing the calculation of VAT on presumed turnover))
(2019/C 25/03)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Reggio Calabria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fortunata Silvia Fontana

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Reggio Calabria

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises tax authorities, in the event of serious differences between declared revenue and revenue estimated on the basis of sector studies, to use extrapolation, based on such sector studies, in order to determine the amount of turnover achieved by a taxable person and, consequently, to carry out a tax adjustment requiring the payment of additional value added tax (VAT), provided that that legislation and its application enable the taxable person, in compliance with the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and the right of defence, to challenge the results obtained by that method, on the basis of all of the evidence to the contrary available to him, and to exercise his right of deduction in accordance with the provisions in Title X of Directive 2006/2012, which it is for the referring court to verify.


(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
Case C-664/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Lucreţiu Hadrian Vădan v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Alba (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167, 168, 178 and 273 — Scope of the right of deduction — Absence of invoices — Recourse to a court-commissioned expert report — Burden of proof of the right of deduction — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, expert's report ordered by a court, invoicing, principle of proportionality, proof, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2019025EN.01000401.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/4






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Lucreţiu Hadrian Vădan v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Alba
(Case C-664/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168, 178 and 273 - Scope of the right of deduction - Absence of invoices - Recourse to a court-commissioned expert report - Burden of proof of the right of deduction - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality))
(2019/C 25/04)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lucreţiu Hadrian Vădan

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Alba

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Articles 167, 168, 178(a) and 179, and the principles of the neutrality of value added tax (VAT) and proportionality, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a taxable person who is unable to provide evidence of the amount of input VAT he has paid, by producing invoices or any other document, cannot benefit from a right to deduct VAT solely on the basis of an assessment resulting from an expert report commissioned by a national court.


(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9193 — Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited/Eurolife Erb Insurance Group Holdings S.A.) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, insurance, investment company, merger control








C_2018421EN.01001601.xml










21.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/16






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9193 — Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited/Eurolife Erb Insurance Group Holdings S.A.)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 421/08)

1.   
On 13 Novemberber 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (‘Fairfax’, Canada),










—


Eurolife Erb Insurance Group Holdings S.A. (‘Eurolife’, Greece).




Fairfax acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control of the whole of Eurolife. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Fairfax: a holding company active in property and casualty insurance and reinsurance and investment management.
—   for Eurolife: a holding company active in life and non-life insurance and reinsurance and insurance distribution in Greece and Romania.


3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9193 — Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited/Eurolife Erb Insurance Group Holdings S.A.
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax +32 22964301




Postal address:




European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-339/17: Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENOAK) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark SEVENOAK — Earlier international figurative mark 7seven — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-11-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, optical industry, photographic industry, radio equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019035EN.01002102.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/21






Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENOAK)
(Case T-339/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark SEVENOAK - Earlier international figurative mark 7seven - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 35/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: M. de Arpe Tejero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2017 (Case R 1326/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Seven and Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2017 (Case R 1326/2016-1);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, eight tenths of the costs incurred by Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd;










4.


Orders Seven SpA to bear, in addition to its own costs, a tenth of the costs incurred by Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial;










5.


Orders Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial to bear a tenth of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.