C 451/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
28.11.2022
3.
If the answer is in the affirmative, what precisely must be understood by the ‘essence’ of the confidential grounds on which that decision is based, having regard to Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter? 4.
Having regard to Article 47 of the Charter, must Article 20 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, where a court of a Member State rules on the legality of the opinion of the specialised authority which is based on grounds relating to confidential or classified information and on the legality of the substantive immigration decision adopted on the basis of that opinion, it must have jurisdiction to examine the legality of the confidentiality (its necessity and proportionality) and, if it considers that the confidentiality is unlawful, to order, of its own motion, that the person concerned and his or her legal representative may know and use all the information on which the opinion and the decision issued by the administrative authorities are based, or alternatively, if it considers that the confidentiality claim is lawful, that the person concerned may know and use at least the essence of the confidential information in the immigration proceedings concerning him or her? 5.
Must Article 20 TFEU, in conjunction with Articles 7 and 24 and Article 51(1) and Article 52(1) of the Charter, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which an immigration decision ordering the withdrawal of a long-term residence permit which had previously been issued or ruling on an application for extension of the right of residence, takes the form of a non-reasoned decision which: (i) is based solely on automatic reference to a — likewise non-reasoned — binding and mandatory opinion by the specialised authority which identifies a danger or harm to national security, public policy or public security; and (ii) has therefore been adopted without an in-depth examination of whether the grounds of national security, public policy or public order exist in the specific case in question, and without taking into account individual circumstances or the requirements of necessity and proportionality?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 9 August 2022 — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj v SC Westside Unicat (Case C-532/22) (2022/C 451/13) Language of the case: Romanian Referring court Curtea de Apel Cluj
Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Defendant: SC Westside Unicat
Questions referred 1.
Is Article 53 of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as applying to services of the type at issue in this dispute, which is to say services provided by a video chat studio to a website operator, consisting in interactive sessions of an erotic nature filmed and transmitted in real [time] via the Internet (live streaming of digital content)?