do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-133/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Refund of VAT — Directive 2008/9/EC — Article 20 — Request for additional information from the Member State of refund — Information to be provided within one month of the date on which the request reaches the person to whom it is addressed — Legal nature of time limit and consequences of failure to comply)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, appeal, establishment, limitation of legal proceedings, principle of proportionality, tax rebate, taxpayer








C_2019220EN.01000601.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/6






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics
(Case C-133/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Refund of VAT - Directive 2008/9/EC - Article 20 - Request for additional information from the Member State of refund - Information to be provided within one month of the date on which the request reaches the person to whom it is addressed - Legal nature of time limit and consequences of failure to comply)
(2019/C 220/08)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2008/9 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State must be interpreted as meaning that the time limit of one month laid down in that provision for providing the Member State of refund with the additional information requested by that Member State is not a limitation period whereby, if that period is exceeded or in the event of a failure to reply, the taxable person loses the possibility of regularising his refund application by producing, directly before the national court, additional information intended to establish the existence of his right to the refund of VAT.


(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.
Case C-265/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Akvilė Jarmuškienė (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common System of Value Added Tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Special scheme for small enterprises — Articles 282 to 292 — VAT exemption for small enterprises whose annual turnover is below the fixed threshold — Simultaneous supply of two immovable properties in a single transaction — Annual turnover limit exceeded in view of the sale price of one of the two properties — Obligation to pay tax on the total value of the transaction)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, commercial transaction, real property, small and medium-sized enterprises, supply, tax exemption, tax relief, turnover








C_2019220EN.01001001.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/10






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Akvilė Jarmuškienė
(Case C-265/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common System of Value Added Tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Special scheme for small enterprises - Articles 282 to 292 - VAT exemption for small enterprises whose annual turnover is below the fixed threshold - Simultaneous supply of two immovable properties in a single transaction - Annual turnover limit exceeded in view of the sale price of one of the two properties - Obligation to pay tax on the total value of the transaction)
(2019/C 220/13)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Respondent: Akvilė Jarmuškienė

Other party: Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 282 to 292 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where a supply, to the same purchaser, comprises two immovable properties, linked by their nature and coming under a single contract of sale, and the annual turnover limit serving as a reference for the purposes of applying the special scheme for small enterprises provided for by that directive is exceeded, the taxable person is required to pay tax on the basis of the entire value of the supply in question, that is to say, taking into account the value of both the properties being supplied, even where taking into account the value of one of those properties would not lead to that annual limit being exceeded.


(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019150EN.01000101.xml










2.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 150/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

30 April 2019
(2019/C 150/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1218 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,93 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4646 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86248 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6350 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1437 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6678 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,659 




HUF


Hungarian forint


322,97 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2868 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7596 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,6913 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5911 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5075 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8007 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6805 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5263 




KRW


South Korean won


1 308,01 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0224 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5541 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4130 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 953,68 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6314 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,125 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,2099 




THB


Thai baht


35,802 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4050 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2829 




INR


Indian rupee


78,0615 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-225/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Grupa Lotos S.A. v Minister Finansów (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 17(2) and (6) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 168 and 176 — Exclusion from the right to deduct — Purchase of overnight accommodation and catering services — Standstill clause — Accession to the European Union)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, accession to the European Union, catering industry, hotel industry, principle of proportionality, service, tax relief








C_2019220EN.01000801.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/8






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Grupa Lotos S.A. v Minister Finansów
(Case C-225/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Deduction of input tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 17(2) and (6) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 168 and 176 - Exclusion from the right to deduct - Purchase of overnight accommodation and catering services - Standstill clause - Accession to the European Union)
(2019/C 220/10)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Grupa Lotos S.A.

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as:






—


precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the scope of an exclusion from the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) to be extended, after the accession of the Member State concerned to the European Union, and which means that a taxable person, providing tourism services, is deprived, from the entry into force of that extension, of the right to deduct VAT paid on the purchase of overnight accommodation and catering services which that taxable person re-invoices to other taxable persons in the context of the provision of tourism services and










—


not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the exclusion from the right to deduct VAT paid on the purchase of overnight accommodation and catering services, that exclusion having been introduced before the accession of the Member State concerned to the European Union and maintained thereafter, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 176 of Directive 2006/112, and which means that a taxable person, who does not provide tourism services, is deprived of the right to deduct VAT paid on the purchase of such overnight accommodation and catering services which that taxable person re-invoices to other taxable persons.






(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Case C-598/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — A-Fonds v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Existing aid and new aid — Concept of new aid — Refund of dividend tax — Scheme widened to companies established outside the Member State concerned — Free movement of capital — Obligations of national courts)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, capital gains tax, control of State aid, free movement of capital, tax rebate, tax relief








C_2019220EN.01000202.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/2






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — A-Fonds v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst
(Case C-598/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Existing aid and new aid - Concept of new aid - Refund of dividend tax - Scheme widened to companies established outside the Member State concerned - Free movement of capital - Obligations of national courts)
(2019/C 220/03)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A-Fonds

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 107 and 108 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court cannot assess whether a residence condition, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, complies with Article 56(1) EC, now Article 63(1) TFEU, where the scheme for the refund of dividend tax concerned constitutes an aid scheme.


(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Case C-694/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — Pillar Securitisation Sàrl v Hildur Arnadottir (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Lugano II Convention — Article 15 — Contract concluded by a consumer — Relationship with Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Articles 2 and 3 — Concepts of ‘consumer’ and of ‘transactions covered by the directive’ — Maximum amount of credit — Irrelevant for the purposes of Article 15 of the Lugano II Convention)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: business activity, consumer, consumer credit, international convention, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, private international law








C_2019220EN.01000501.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/5






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — Pillar Securitisation Sàrl v Hildur Arnadottir
(Case C-694/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Lugano II Convention - Article 15 - Contract concluded by a consumer - Relationship with Directive 2008/48/EC - Consumer credit agreements - Articles 2 and 3 - Concepts of ‘consumer’ and of ‘transactions covered by the directive’ - Maximum amount of credit - Irrelevant for the purposes of Article 15 of the Lugano II Convention)
(2019/C 220/06)
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

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15 of 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, for the purposes of ascertaining whether a credit agreement is a credit agreement concluded by a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Article 15, it must not be determined whether the agreement falls within the scope of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, in the sense that the total cost of credit in question does not exceed the ceiling set out in Article 2(2)(c) of that directive, and that it is irrelevant, in that regard, that the national law transposing that directive does not provide for a higher ceiling.


(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
Case C-268/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău — Romania) — SC Onlineshop SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined nomenclature — Subheadings 85269120 and 85285900 — GPS navigation system with multiple functions)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, electronic device, satellite navigation, specification of tariff heading, vehicle parts








C_2019220EN.01001101.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/11






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău — Romania) — SC Onlineshop SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor
(Case C-268/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined nomenclature - Subheadings 85269120 and 85285900 - GPS navigation system with multiple functions)
(2019/C 220/14)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SC Onlineshop SRL

Respondents: Agenția Natională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor

Operative part of the judgment

The combined nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that multifunctional devices of the kind used in motor vehicles which, like that at issue in the main proceedings, combine, in the same housing, as its primary function, a radio navigation monitor which uses pre-installed GPS navigation applications and, subsidiarily, a radio broadcasting transmitter, an audio/video reproduction apparatus and a screen with a diagonal measurement of approximately 5 inches (12.7 cm), must be classified under subheading 85269120 in that nomenclature.


(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Case C-294/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the markkinaoikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Oulun Sähkönmyynti Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Energy efficiency — Directive 2012/27/EU — Article 11(1) — Cost of access to metering and billing information — Right of final customers to receive all their bills and billing information relating to their energy consumption free of charge — Electricity network charges — Discount on electricity network charges granted by an electricity retail sales company to customers who have chosen electronic billing)
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, customers, electrical energy, energy consumption, energy efficiency, free service, invoicing, price of energy, reduced price








C_2019220EN.01001201.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/12






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the markkinaoikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Oulun Sähkönmyynti Oy
(Case C-294/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy efficiency - Directive 2012/27/EU - Article 11(1) - Cost of access to metering and billing information - Right of final customers to receive all their bills and billing information relating to their energy consumption free of charge - Electricity network charges - Discount on electricity network charges granted by an electricity retail sales company to customers who have chosen electronic billing)
(2019/C 220/15)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Markkinaoikeus

Party to the main proceedings

Oulun Sähkönmyynti Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1) of Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC must be interpreted as not preluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a discount on electricity network charges granted by an electricity retail sales company exclusively to final customers who have chosen electronic billing.


(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.
Case C-344/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 2 May 2019 — D.J. v Radiotelevizija Slovenija
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, broadcasting, leisure, programmes industry, secondary residence, television, working time








C_2019263EN.01003001.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/30






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 2 May 2019 — D.J. v Radiotelevizija Slovenija
(Case C-344/19)
(2019/C 263/35)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: D.J.

Defendant: Radiotelevizija Slovenija

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the present case, stand-by duty, during which a worker performing his work at a radio and television transmission station must during the period he is not at work (when his physical presence at the workplace is not necessary) be contactable when called and, where necessary, be at his workplace within one hour, is to be considered working time?










2.


Is the definition of the nature of stand-by duty in circumstances such as those of the present case affected by the fact that the worker resides in accommodation provided at the site where he performs his work (radio and television transmission station), since the geographical characteristics of the site make it impossible (or more difficult) to return home (‘down the valley’) each day?










3.


Must the answer to the two preceding questions be different where the site involved is one where the opportunities for pursing leisure activities during free time are limited on account of the geographical characteristics of the place or where the worker encounters greater restrictions on the management of his free time and pursuit of his own interests (than if he lived at home)?






(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
Case C-346/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2019 — Bundeszentralamt für Steuern v Y-GmbH
Date: 2019-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, invoicing, tax collection, tax rebate, taxpayer








C_2019263EN.01003101.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/31






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2019 — Bundeszentralamt für Steuern v Y-GmbH
(Case C-346/19)
(2019/C 263/36)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Respondent: Y-GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 8(2)(d) of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, (1) provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State, according to which the refund application is to set out, for each Member State of refund and for each invoice, inter alia, the number of the invoice, to be interpreted as meaning that it is also sufficient to state the reference number of an invoice, which is shown on an invoice document as an additional classification criterion alongside the invoice number?










2.


If the above question is to be answered in the negative: Is a refund application in which the reference number of an invoice has been indicated instead of the invoice number to be considered formally complete and submitted within the deadline for the purpose of the second sentence of Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/9?










3.


Should consideration be given, when answering Question 2, to the fact that the taxable person not established in the Member State of refund was, from the point of view of a reasonable applicant, and given the design of the electronic portal in the State of establishment and the form provided by the Member State of refund, entitled to assume that, for the application to have been properly made, or in any event to be formally complete and timely, entering an indicator other than the invoice number is sufficient for the purpose of identifying the invoice to which the refund application relates?






(1)  OJ 2008 L 44, p. 23.

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).