do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-573/18 and C-574/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — C GmbH & Co. KG (C-573/18), C-eG (C-574/18) v Finanzamt Z (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable amount — Subsidy directly linked to price — Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 — Article 11(1) and Article 15 — Producer organisation having set up an operational fund — Deliveries made by the producer organisation to its members in exchange for payments not covering the entirety of the purchase price — Additional financing paid by the operational fund)
Date: 2019-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, aid to agriculture, basis of tax assessment, common organisation of markets, fruit, producer organisation, purchase price, supply, tax relief, vegetable








C_2019423EN.01001601.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/16






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — C GmbH & Co. KG (C-573/18), C-eG (C-574/18) v Finanzamt Z
(Joined Cases C-573/18 and C-574/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 11A(1)(a) - Taxable amount - Subsidy directly linked to price - Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 - Article 11(1) and Article 15 - Producer organisation having set up an operational fund - Deliveries made by the producer organisation to its members in exchange for payments not covering the entirety of the purchase price - Additional financing paid by the operational fund)
(2019/C 423/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: C GmbH & Co. KG (C-573/18), C-eG (C-574/18)

Defendant: Finanzamt Z

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11A(1)(a) of the 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 meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in which a ‘producer organisation’, within the meaning of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruits and vegetables, purchases goods from input suppliers, supplies those goods to its partner members and obtains from them a payment not covering the purchase price, the amount that an operational fund, such as provided for in Article 15 of that regulation, pays to that producer organisation for the supply of those goods to producers is incorporated in the consideration for that supply and must be regarded as a subsidy directly linked to the price of that supply, paid for by a third party.


(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case C-743/19: Action brought on 9 October 2019 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Date: 2019-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bratislava region, EU office or agency, Slovakia, abuse of power, powers of the institutions (EU), seat of institution








C_2019399EN.01003501.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/35






Action brought on 9 October 2019 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-743/19)
(2019/C 399/41)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, I. Anagnostopoulou, and C. Biz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Decision (EU) 2019/1199 of 13 June 2019; (1)











—


order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea in law, the Parliament claims that the author of the contested decision, be it the Council or all the Member States, does not have the power to determine the location of the seat of the European Labour Authority (ELA). The Parliament is of the opinion that:
Article 341 TFEU does not constitute an appropriate legal basis to determine the seat of bodies of the European Union such as decentralised agencies. In the present case, ELA was established by the EU legislature by Regulation (EU) 2019/1149, (2) adopted on the basis of Articles 46 and 48 TFUE by means of the ordinary legislative procedure. The Parliament considers that Article 341 TFEU cannot withdraw from the scope of competence of the EU legislature, which established ELA, the power to decide on the location of its seat, by attributing it instead to the Member States, and that therefore that provision cannot validily serve as the legal basis for the contested decision.
By the second plea in law, raised in the alternative in the event that the Court were to find that Article 341 TFEU provides an appropriate legal basis for the contested decision, the Parliament seeks to claim that that decision is vitiated by an absolute failure to state reasons. The Parliament considers that, as a legal act of the European Union, the constested decision is subject to the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFUE, which was not fulfilled in any way, since it utterly fails to specify the reasons why the city of Bratislava was chosen to host the seat of ELA.


(1)  Decision (EU) 2019/1199 taken by common accord between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 13 June 2019 on the location of the seat of the European Labour Authority (OJ 2019 L 189, p. 68).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 establishing a European Labour Authority, amending Regulations (EC) No 883/2004, (EU) No 492/2011, and (EU) 2016/589 and repealing Decision (EU) 2016/344 (OJ 2019 L 186, p. 21).