Dataset Viewer
ID
stringlengths 1
4
| case_name
stringclasses 47
values | case_number
stringclasses 90
values | document_url
stringlengths 73
136
| year
stringdate 1963-01-01 00:00:00
2019-01-01 00:00:00
| graphviz
stringlengths 205
4.49k
| language
stringclasses 23
values | legal_text
stringlengths 99
4.09k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SK/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 |
digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Komisári" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "Komisári" [label="Požiadala daňový úrad o odpočítanie DPH v súvislosti s poplatkami uhradenými za správu príslušného fondu."];
"Komisári" -> "Daňový úrad zamietol túto žiadosť";
"Daňový úrad zamietol túto žiadosť" -> "University of Cambridge";
"Daňový úrad zamietol túto žiadosť" -> "Tieto poplatky priamo a výlučne súviseli s dotknutou investičnou činnosťou, na ktorú sa nevzťahuje smernica o DPH." [dir=none];
}
| Slovak | Činnosť univerzity v Cambridge je čiastočne financovaná prostredníctvom darov a grantov, ktoré sú vložené do fondu a následne investované. Tento fond spravuje tretia osoba. V marci 2009 táto univerzita požiadala daňový úrad o odpočítanie DPH v súvislosti s poplatkami uhradenými za správu príslušného fondu za obdobie od 1. apríla 1973 do 1. mája 1997 a od 1. mája 2006 do 30. januára 2009 z dôvodu, že príjem vytvorený týmto fondom sa použil na financovanie nákladov na činnosti univerzity ako celku.
Daňový úrad zamietol túto žiadosť s odôvodnením, že tieto poplatky priamo a výlučne súviseli s dotknutou investičnou činnosťou, na ktorú sa nevzťahuje smernica o DPH. Tento úrad sa domnieval, že uvedené poplatky v každom prípade neboli súčasťou ceny dodávky tovaru alebo poskytnutia služieb na výstupe, ktoré podliehajú DPH, pričom príjmy vytvorené týmto fondom čiastočne financujú tieto dodávky tovaru alebo poskytnutia služieb. |
2 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Davčna uprava" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "Davčna uprava" [label="Univerza je marca 2009 od davčne uprave zahtevala odbitek DDV od provizij, ki jih je plačala in ki se nanašajo na upravljanje zadevnega sklada."];
"Davčna uprava" -> "Davčna uprava je ta zahtevek zavrnila";
"Davčna uprava je ta zahtevek zavrnila" -> "University of Cambridge";
"Davčna uprava je ta zahtevek zavrnila" -> "Te provizije se neposredno in izključno pripišejo zadevni investicijski dejavnosti, ki ne spada na področje uporabe Direktive o DDV." [dir=none];
} | Slovenian | Dejavnosti univerze v Cambridgeu se deloma financirajo iz donacij in dotacij, ki se dajo v sklad in potem investirajo. Ta sklad upravlja tretja oseba. Ta univerza je marca 2009 od davčne uprave zahtevala odbitek DDV od provizij, ki jih je plačala in ki se nanašajo na upravljanje zadevnega sklada za obdobja od 1. aprila 1973 do 1. maja 1997 in od 1. maja 2006 do 30. januarja 2009, in navajala, da so bili prihodki, ki jih je ustvaril ta sklad, uporabljani za financiranje stroškov vseh njenih dejavnosti.
Davčna uprava je ta zahtevek zavrnila, ker se te provizije neposredno in izključno pripišejo zadevni investicijski dejavnosti, ki ne spada na področje uporabe Direktive o DDV. Ta uprava je menila, da te provizije v nobenem primeru niso bile del izstopne cene dobave blaga ali storitev, ki so predmet DDV, ker prihodki, ki jih ustvari ta sklad, deloma financirajo to dobavo blaga ali storitev. |
3 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FI/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 |
digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Komission jäsenet" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "Komission jäsenet" [label="Kyseinen yliopisto pyysi maaliskuussa 2009 verohallinnolta vapautusta arvonlisäverosta, joka koski kyseisen rahaston hoitoon liittyviä maksuja, jotka oli maksettu 1.4.1973 ja 1.5.1997 väliseltä sekä 1.5.2006 ja 30.1.2009 väliseltä ajanjaksolta."];
"Komission jäsenet" -> "Verohallinto hylkäsi tämän pyynnön";
"Verohallinto hylkäsi tämän pyynnön" -> "University of Cambridge";
"Verohallinto hylkäsi tämän pyynnön" -> "Nämä maksut olivat aiheutuneet välittömästi ja yksinomaan kyseessä olevasta sijoitustoiminnasta, joka ei kuulunut arvonlisäverodirektiivin soveltamisalaan." [dir=none];
}
| Finnish | Cambridgen yliopiston toiminta rahoitetaan osittain lahjoilla ja lahjoituksilla, jotka siirretään rahastoon ja sijoitetaan. Tätä rahastoa hoitaa kolmas osapuoli. Kyseinen yliopisto pyysi maaliskuussa 2009 verohallinnolta vapautusta arvonlisäverosta, joka koski kyseisen rahaston hoitoon liittyviä maksuja, jotka oli maksettu 1.4.1973 ja 1.5.1997 väliseltä sekä 1.5.2006 ja 30.1.2009 väliseltä ajanjaksolta, ja väitti, että tästä rahastosta saatu tuotto oli käytetty kaikesta yliopiston toiminnasta aiheutuneiden kulujen rahoittamiseen.
Verohallinto hylkäsi tämän pyynnön sillä perusteella, että nämä maksut olivat aiheutuneet välittömästi ja yksinomaan kyseessä olevasta sijoitustoiminnasta, joka ei kuulunut arvonlisäverodirektiivin soveltamisalaan. Verohallinto katsoi, että kyseessä olevat maksut eivät missään tapauksessa olleet osa myöhemmässä vaihdannan vaiheessa tapahtunutta arvonlisäverollisten tavaroiden tai palvelujen tarjoamisen hintaa, koska tästä rahastosta saatavalla tuotolla rahoitettiin osittain tämä tavaroiden tai palvelujen tarjoaminen. |
4 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SV/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 |
digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Kommissionärerna" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "Kommissionärerna" [label="yrkade universitetet avdrag för den mervärdesskatt som hänför sig till de avgifter som betalats för förvaltningen av den berörda fonden"];
"Kommissionärerna" -> "Skattemyndigheten nekade avdrag";
"Skattemyndigheten nekade avdrag" -> "University of Cambridge";
"Skattemyndigheten nekade avdrag" -> "Dessa avgifter var direkt och uteslutande hänförliga till den berörda investeringsverksamheten, som inte omfattades av mervärdesskattedirektivet." [dir=none];
}
| Swedish | Verksamheten vid universitetet i Cambridge finansieras delvis genom donationer och anslag, som placeras i en fond och sedan investeras. Fonden förvaltas av en utomstående aktör. I mars 2009 yrkade universitetet avdrag för den mervärdesskatt som hänför sig till de avgifter som betalats för förvaltningen av den berörda fonden, avseende perioderna 1 april 1973–1 maj 1997 och 1 maj 2006–30 januari 2009, med motiveringen att de intäkter som genererats av denna fond hade använts för finansieringen av samtliga verksamheter.
Skattemyndigheten nekade avdrag med motiveringen att dessa avgifter var direkt och uteslutande hänförliga till den berörda investeringsverksamheten, som inte omfattades av mervärdesskattedirektivet. Skattemyndigheten fann att nämnda avgifter i vart fall inte utgjorde en kostnadskomponent som ingick i priset för utgående leverans och tillhandahållande av varor respektive tjänster som var föremål för mervärdesskatt, då de inkomster som genererats av denna fond till viss del finansierade detta tillhandahållande av varor eller tjänster. |
5 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Commissioners" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom)" [label="Challenged the Commissioners’ decision"];
"First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom)" -> "Granted application";
"Granted application" -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)" -> "Granted application" [label="Upheld"];
"Granted application" -> "The fees for the management of the fund concerned were expenditure incurred for the purposes of the University of Cambridge’s economic activities and, therefore, that they formed part of the university’s overheads." [dir=none];
"Commissioners" -> "Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)" [label="Brought an appeal against the decision"];
} | English | The University of Cambridge challenged the Commissioners’ decision before the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom). That tribunal found that the fees for the management of the fund concerned were expenditure incurred for the purposes of the University of Cambridge’s economic activities and, therefore, that they formed part of the university’s overheads; accordingly, it granted the University of Cambridge’s application. That assessment was upheld by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom); the Commissioners then brought an appeal against the decision of the latter tribunal before the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom). |
6 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/BG/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"данъчната администрация" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (данъчно отделение) (Обединено кралство)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (данъчно и финансово отделение) (Обединено кралство)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Англия и Уелс) (гражданско отделение) (Обединено кралство)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (данъчно отделение) (Обединено кралство)" [label="обжалва решението на посочената администрация"];
"First-tier Tribunal (данъчно отделение) (Обединено кралство)" -> "уважава искането";
"уважава искането" -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (данъчно и финансово отделение) (Обединено кралство)" -> "уважава искането" [label="уважава"];
"уважава искането" -> "Разходите за управлението на разглеждания фонд са представлявали разходи, направени за целите на икономическите дейности на Кеймбриджкия университет и че като такива те са били част от общите му разходи." [dir=none];
"данъчната администрация" -> "Court of Appeal (Англия и Уелс) (гражданско отделение) (Обединено кралство)" [label="обжалва решението"];
} | Bulgarian | Кеймбриджкият университет обжалва решението на посочената администрация пред First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (Първоинстанционен съд (данъчно отделение), Обединено кралство). Като приема, че разходите за управлението на разглеждания фонд са представлявали разходи, направени за целите на икономическите дейности на Кеймбриджкия университет и че като такива те са били част от общите му разходи, тази юрисдикция уважава искането на Кеймбриджкия университет. След като този извод е потвърден от Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Въззивен съд (данъчно и финансово отделение), Обединено кралство), данъчната администрация обжалва решението на последната юрисдикция пред Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (Апелативен съд (Англия и Уелс) (гражданско отделение), Обединено кралство). |
7 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Administración tributaria" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (Sala de asuntos tributarios) (Reino Unido)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (Sala de Asuntos Tributarios y de los mercados regulados) (Reino Unido)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Inglaterra y Gales) (Sala de lo Civil) (Reino Unido)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (Sala de asuntos tributarios) (Reino Unido)" [label="Impugnó la resolución de la Administración tributaria"];
"First-tier Tribunal (Sala de asuntos tributarios) (Reino Unido)" -> "estimó la solicitud";
"estimó la solicitud" -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (Sala de Asuntos Tributarios y de los mercados regulados) (Reino Unido)" -> "estimó la solicitud" [label="estimó la solicitud"];
"estimó la solicitud" -> "Las comisiones relativas a la gestión del fondo de que se trata eran gastos realizados para las necesidades de las actividades económicas de la Universidad de Cambridge y que, por consiguiente, formaban parte de sus gastos generales." [dir=none];
"Administración tributaria" -> "Court of Appeal (Inglaterra y Gales) (Sala de lo Civil) (Reino Unido)" [label="impugnó la resolución"];
} | Spanish | La Universidad de Cambridge impugnó la resolución de la Administración tributaria ante el First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) [Tribunal de Primera Instancia de lo Contencioso-Administrativo (Sala de asuntos tributarios), Reino Unido]. Dicho órgano jurisdiccional consideró que las comisiones relativas a la gestión del fondo de que se trata eran gastos realizados para las necesidades de las actividades económicas de la Universidad de Cambridge y que, por consiguiente, formaban parte de sus gastos generales, por lo que estimó la solicitud de la Universidad de Cambridge. Dado que esta apreciación fue confirmada por el Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) [Tribunal Superior de lo Contencioso-Administrativo (Sala de Asuntos Tributarios y de los mercados regulados), Reino Unido], la Administración tributaria interpuso recurso de apelación contra la resolución de este último órgano jurisdiccional ante la Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) [Tribunal de Apelación (Inglaterra y Gales), Sala de lo Civil, Reino Unido). |
8 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/CS/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"daňová správa" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (daňový senát) (Spojené království)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (daňový a obchodní senát) (Spojené království)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Anglie a Wales) (občanskoprávní oddělení) (Spojené království)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (daňový senát) (Spojené království)" [label="napadla rozhodnutí daňové správy"];
"First-tier Tribunal (daňový senát) (Spojené království)" -> "žalobě univerzity v Cambridge vyhověl.";
"žalobě univerzity v Cambridge vyhověl." -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (daňový a obchodní senát) (Spojené království)" -> "žalobě univerzity v Cambridge vyhověl." [label="potvrdil"];
"žalobě univerzity v Cambridge vyhověl." -> "Poplatky za správu dotyčného fondu představují výdaje vynaložené pro účely ekonomické činnosti univerzity v Cambridge, takže z toho důvodu spadají do jejích režijních výdajů." [dir=none];
"daňová správa" -> "Court of Appeal (Anglie a Wales) (občanskoprávní oddělení) (Spojené království)" [label="daňová správa podala proti jeho rozhodnutí odvolání"];
} | Czech | Univerzita v Cambridge napadla rozhodnutí daňové správy u First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) [soud prvního stupně (daňový senát), Spojené království]. Tento soud dospěl k názoru, že poplatky za správu dotyčného fondu představují výdaje vynaložené pro účely ekonomické činnosti univerzity v Cambridge, takže z toho důvodu spadají do jejích režijních výdajů, a žalobě univerzity v Cambridge vyhověl. Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) [vrchní soud (daňový a obchodní senát, Spojené království)] tento závěr potvrdil, a tak daňová správa podala proti jeho rozhodnutí odvolání ke Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) [odvolací soud (Anglie a Wales) (občanskoprávní oddělení), Spojené království]. |
9 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DA/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"afgiftsmyndigheden" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (afdelingen for sager om skatter og afgifter) (Det Forenede Kongerige)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (afdelingen for skatter og afgifter og visse sager om tinglysning) (Det Forenede Kongerige)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (England og Wales) (afdelingen for civile sager) (Det Forenede Kongerige)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (afdelingen for sager om skatter og afgifter) (Det Forenede Kongerige)" [label="University of Cambridge indbragte nævnte myndigheds afgørelse"];
"First-tier Tribunal (afdelingen for sager om skatter og afgifter) (Det Forenede Kongerige)" -> "gav derfor University of Cambridge medhold i sagen.";
"gav derfor University of Cambridge medhold i sagen." -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (afdelingen for skatter og afgifter og visse sager om tinglysning) (Det Forenede Kongerige)" -> "gav derfor University of Cambridge medhold i sagen." [label="stadfæstet"];
"gav derfor University of Cambridge medhold i sagen." -> "Honoraret for forvaltningen af den pågældende fond udgjorde udgifter afholdt til brug for University of Cambridges økonomiske virksomhed, og at de som sådanne var en del af dettes generalomkostninger." [dir=none];
"afgiftsmyndigheden" -> "Court of Appeal (England og Wales) (afdelingen for civile sager) (Det Forenede Kongerige)" [label="indbragte nævnte myndigheds afgørelse"];
} | Danish | University of Cambridge indbragte nævnte myndigheds afgørelse for First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (ret i første instans (afdelingen for sager om skatter og afgifter), Det Forenede Kongerige). Denne ret fandt, at honoraret for forvaltningen af den pågældende fond udgjorde udgifter afholdt til brug for University of Cambridges økonomiske virksomhed, og at de som sådanne var en del af dettes generalomkostninger, og gav derfor University of Cambridge medhold i sagen. Da denne vurdering blev stadfæstet af Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (appeldomstol (afdelingen for skatter og afgifter og visse sager om tinglysning), Det Forenede Kongerige), iværksatte afgiftsmyndigheden appel til prøvelse af sidstnævnte domstols afgørelse for Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (appeldomstol (England og Wales) (afdelingen for civile sager), Det Forenede Kongerige). |
10 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 |
digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Kommissare" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (Kammer für Steuersachen) (Vereinigtes Königreich)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (Kammer für Steuer- und Finanzsachen) (Vereinigtes Königreich)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Rechtsmittelgericht [England & Wales]) (Zivilabteilung) (Vereinigtes Königreich)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (Kammer für Steuersachen) (Vereinigtes Königreich)" [label="Anfechtung der Entscheidung der Kommissare"];
"First-tier Tribunal (Kammer für Steuersachen) (Vereinigtes Königreich)" -> "gab deren Klage statt.";
"gab deren Klage statt." -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (Kammer für Steuer- und Finanzsachen) (Vereinigtes Königreich)" -> "gab deren Klage statt." [label="bestätigt worden war"];
"gab deren Klage statt." -> "Die Fondsverwaltungsgebühren waren Aufwendungen für die wirtschaftlichen Tätigkeiten der Universität Cambridge und daher Teil der Gemeinkosten der Universität." [dir=none];
"Kommissare" -> "Court of Appeal (Rechtsmittelgericht [England & Wales]) (Zivilabteilung) (Vereinigtes Königreich)" [label="focht diese Entscheidung an"];
}
| German | Die Universität Cambridge focht diese Entscheidung vor dem First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (Gericht erster Instanz [Kammer für Steuersachen], Vereinigtes Königreich) an. Dieses Gericht, das die Auffassung vertrat, dass die Fondsverwaltungsgebühren Aufwendungen für die wirtschaftlichen Tätigkeiten der Universität Cambridge darstellten und deshalb Teil der Gemeinkosten der Universität seien, gab deren Klage statt. Nachdem diese Beurteilung vom Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Gericht zweiter Instanz [Kammer für Steuer- und Finanzsachen], Vereinigtes Königreich) bestätigt worden war, legte die Steuerverwaltung gegen dessen Entscheidung Rechtsmittel beim Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (Rechtsmittelgericht [England & Wales] [Zivilabteilung], Vereinigtes Königreich) ein. |
11 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ET/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 |
digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Volinikud" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (maksukolleegium) (Ühendkuningriik)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (maksu- ja kaubanduskolleegium) (Ühendkuningriik)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Inglismaa ja Wales) (tsiviilosakond) (Ühendkuningriik)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (maksukolleegium) (Ühendkuningriik)" [label="vaidlustas volinike otsuse"];
"First-tier Tribunal (maksukolleegium) (Ühendkuningriik)" -> "Rahuldas kohus Cambridge’i ülikooli kaebuse.";
"Rahuldas kohus Cambridge’i ülikooli kaebuse." -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (maksu- ja kaubanduskolleegium) (Ühendkuningriik)" -> "Rahuldas kohus Cambridge’i ülikooli kaebuse." [label="rahuldas kohus Cambridge’i ülikooli kaebuse."];
"Rahuldas kohus Cambridge’i ülikooli kaebuse." -> "Asjaomase fondi haldamisega seotud teenustasu kujutab endast Cambridge’i ülikooli majandustegevusega seotud kulu ning et seetõttu moodustab see kulu teatava osa ülikooli üldkuludest." [dir=none];
"Volinikud" -> "Court of Appeal (Inglismaa ja Wales) (tsiviilosakond) (Ühendkuningriik)" [label="Esitas maksuhaldur viimati nimetatud kohtu otsuse peale apellatsioonkaebuse"];
}
| Estonian | Cambridge’i ülikool vaidlustas maksuhalduri otsuse First-tier Tribunalis (Tax Chamber) (esimese astme kohus (maksukolleegium), Ühendkuningriik). Kuna kohus leidis, et asjaomase fondi haldamisega seotud teenustasu kujutab endast Cambridge’i ülikooli majandustegevusega seotud kulu ning et seetõttu moodustab see kulu teatava osa ülikooli üldkuludest, rahuldas kohus Cambridge’i ülikooli kaebuse. Kuna Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (kõrgem kohus (maksu- ja kaubanduskolleegium), Ühendkuningriik) nõustus selle hinnanguga, esitas maksuhaldur viimati nimetatud kohtu otsuse peale apellatsioonkaebuse Court of Appealile (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (apellatsioonikohus (Inglismaa ja Wales) (tsiviilosakond), Ühendkuningriik). |
12 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 |
digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Επίτροποι" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (φορολογικό τμήμα) (Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (τμήμα φορολογίας και κτηματολογίου) (Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Αγγλία και Ουαλία) (πολιτικό τμήμα) (Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (φορολογικό τμήμα) (Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο)" [label="Προσβάλλει την απόφαση των Επιτρόπων"];
"First-tier Tribunal (φορολογικό τμήμα) (Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο)" -> "έκανε δεκτό το αίτημα";
"έκανε δεκτό το αίτημα" -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (τμήμα φορολογίας και κτηματολογίου) (Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο)" -> "έκανε δεκτό το αίτημα" [label="επιβεβαίωσε"];
"έκανε δεκτό το αίτημα" -> "Οι προμήθειες για τη διαχείριση του εν λόγω ταμείου αποτελούν δαπάνες στις οποίες το πανεπιστήμιο του Cambridge υποβάλλεται για τις ανάγκες των οικονομικών δραστηριοτήτων του και ότι, ως τέτοιες, αποτελούν μέρος των γενικών εξόδων του." [dir=none];
"Επίτροποι" -> "Court of Appeal (Αγγλία και Ουαλία) (πολιτικό τμήμα) (Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο)" [label="προσέβαλε την απόφαση"];
}
| Greek | Το πανεπιστήμιο του Cambridge προσέβαλε την απόφαση της εν λόγω διοίκησης ενώπιον του First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) [πρωτοδικείου διοικητικών διαφορών (φορολογικό τμήμα), Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο]. Το ως άνω δικαστήριο, φρονώντας ότι οι προμήθειες για τη διαχείριση του εν λόγω ταμείου αποτελούν δαπάνες στις οποίες το πανεπιστήμιο του Cambridge υποβάλλεται για τις ανάγκες των οικονομικών δραστηριοτήτων του και ότι, ως τέτοιες, αποτελούν μέρος των γενικών εξόδων του, έκανε δεκτό το αίτημα του πανεπιστημίου του Cambridge. Την εν λόγω κρίση επιβεβαίωσε το Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) [εφετείο διοικητικών διαφορών (τμήμα φορολογίας και κτηματολογίου, Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο)] οπότε η φορολογική διοίκηση άσκησε ένδικο μέσο κατά της αποφάσεως του δικαστηρίου αυτού ενώπιον του Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) [εφετείου (Αγγλία και Ουαλία) (πολιτικό τμήμα), Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο]. |
13 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"commissions" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (chambre de la fiscalité) (Royaume-Uni)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (chambre de la fiscalité et de la Chancery) (Royaume-Uni)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Angleterre et pays de Galles) (division civile) (Royaume-Uni)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (chambre de la fiscalité) (Royaume-Uni)" [label="a contesté la décision de ladite administration"];
"First-tier Tribunal (chambre de la fiscalité) (Royaume-Uni)" -> "a fait droit à la demande";
"a fait droit à la demande" -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (chambre de la fiscalité et de la Chancery) (Royaume-Uni)" -> "a fait droit à la demande" [label="a fait droit à la demande de l’université de Cambridge. Cette appréciation ayant été confirmée"];
"a fait droit à la demande" -> "Les commissions relatives à la gestion du fonds concerné constituaient des dépenses exposées pour les besoins des activités économiques de l’université de Cambridge et que, à ce titre, elles faisaient partie des frais généraux de cette dernière." [dir=none];
"commissions" -> "Court of Appeal (Angleterre et pays de Galles) (division civile) (Royaume-Uni)" [label="a interjeté appel de la décision"];
} | French | L’université de Cambridge a contesté la décision de ladite administration devant le First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) [tribunal de première instance (chambre de la fiscalité), Royaume-Uni]. Cette juridiction, considérant que les commissions relatives à la gestion du fonds concerné constituaient des dépenses exposées pour les besoins des activités économiques de l’université de Cambridge et que, à ce titre, elles faisaient partie des frais généraux de cette dernière, a fait droit à la demande de l’université de Cambridge. Cette appréciation ayant été confirmée par l’Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) [tribunal supérieur (chambre de la fiscalité et de la Chancery, Royaume-Uni)], l’administration fiscale a interjeté appel de la décision de cette dernière juridiction devant la Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) [Cour d’appel (Angleterre et pays de Galles) (division civile), Royaume-Uni]. |
14 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"porezna uprava" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (Odjel za poreze) (Ujedinjena Kraljevina)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (Odjel za poreze i Chancery) (Ujedinjena Kraljevina)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Engleska i Wales) (Građanski odjel) (Ujedinjena Kraljevina)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (Odjel za poreze) (Ujedinjena Kraljevina)" [label="Sveučilište u Cambridgeu je osporavalo odluku navedene uprave"];
"First-tier Tribunal (Odjel za poreze) (Ujedinjena Kraljevina)" -> "Usvojio njegovu tužbu.";
"Usvojio njegovu tužbu." -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (Odjel za poreze i Chancery) (Ujedinjena Kraljevina)" -> "Usvojio njegovu tužbu." [label="Usvojio"];
"Usvojio njegovu tužbu." -> "Naknade za upravljanje dotičnim fondom predstavljaju troškove nastale za potrebe gospodarskih aktivnosti Sveučilišta u Cambridgeu i da, na toj osnovi, predstavljaju dio njegovih općih troškova." [dir=none];
"porezna uprava" -> "Court of Appeal (Engleska i Wales) (Građanski odjel) (Ujedinjena Kraljevina)" [label="porezna uprava je podnijela žalbu protiv odluke"];
} | Croatian | Sveučilište u Cambridgeu je osporavalo odluku navedene uprave pred First‑tier Tribunalom (Tax Chamber) (Prvostupanjski sud, Odjel za poreze, Ujedinjena Kraljevina). Taj je sud, smatrajući da naknade za upravljanje dotičnim fondom predstavljaju troškove nastale za potrebe gospodarskih aktivnosti Sveučilišta u Cambridgeu i da, na toj osnovi, predstavljaju dio njegovih općih troškova, usvojio njegovu tužbu. Nakon što je tu ocjenu potvrdio Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Viši sud, Odjel za poreze i Chancery, Ujedinjena Kraljevina), porezna uprava je podnijela žalbu protiv odluke potonjeg suda pred Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (Žalbeni sud, Engleska i Wales (Građanski odjel), Ujedinjena Kraljevina). |
15 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 |
digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Commissari" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (sezione tributaria) (Regno Unito)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (sezione tributaria e del pubblico registro e della cancelleria) (Regno Unito)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Inghilterra e Galles) (sezione civile) (Regno Unito)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (sezione tributaria) (Regno Unito)" [label="Impugnazione della decisione dei Commissari"];
"First-tier Tribunal (sezione tributaria) (Regno Unito)" -> "Accoglieva la domanda";
"Accoglieva la domanda" -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (sezione tributaria e del pubblico registro e della cancelleria) (Regno Unito)" -> "Accoglieva la domanda" [label="Accoglieva"];
"Accoglieva la domanda" -> "I compensi relativi alla gestione del fondo di cui trattasi costituivano spese sostenute per le esigenze delle attività economiche dell’università di Cambridge e che, per tale motivo, facevano parte delle spese generali di quest’ultima." [dir=none];
"Commissari" -> "Court of Appeal (Inghilterra e Galles) (sezione civile) (Regno Unito)" [label="Interponeva appello contro la decisione"];
}
| Italian | L’università di Cambridge contestava la decisione di detta amministrazione dinanzi al First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) [Tribunale di primo grado (sezione tributaria), Regno Unito]. Tale giudice, considerando che i compensi relativi alla gestione del fondo di cui trattasi costituivano spese sostenute per le esigenze delle attività economiche dell’università di Cambridge e che, per tale motivo, facevano parte delle spese generali di quest’ultima, accoglieva la domanda dell’università di Cambridge. Poiché tale valutazione era stata confermata dall’Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) [Tribunale superiore (sezione tributaria e del pubblico registro e della cancelleria, Regno Unito)], l’amministrazione tributaria interponeva appello contro la decisione di quest’ultimo giudice dinanzi alla Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) [Corte d’appello (Inghilterra e Galles) (sezione civile), Regno Unito]. |
16 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/LV/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"komisijas" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (Nodokļu lietu palāta) (Apvienotā Karaliste)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (Nodokļu un kanclera kompetences lietu palāta) (Apvienotā Karaliste)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Anglija un Velsa) (Civillietu palāta) (Apvienotā Karaliste)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (Nodokļu lietu palāta) (Apvienotā Karaliste)" [label="Par minētās administrācijas lēmumu Kembridžas Universitāte cēla prasību"];
"First-tier Tribunal (Nodokļu lietu palāta) (Apvienotā Karaliste)" -> "apmierināja Kembridžas Universitātes prasību.";
"apmierināja Kembridžas Universitātes prasību." -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (Nodokļu un kanclera kompetences lietu palāta) (Apvienotā Karaliste)" -> "apmierināja Kembridžas Universitātes prasību." [label="apstiprināja"];
"apmierināja Kembridžas Universitātes prasību." -> "Komisijas maksas, kas saistītas ar attiecīgā fonda pārvaldību, ir izdevumi, kuri izdarīti Kembridžas Universitātes saimnieciskajai darbībai, un ka šajā ziņā tās esot pēdējās minētās pieskaitāmo izmaksu daļa." [dir=none];
"komisijas" -> "Court of Appeal (Anglija un Velsa) (Civillietu palāta) (Apvienotā Karaliste)" [label="iesniedza apelācijas sūdzību par šīs pēdējās minētās tiesas nolēmumu"];
} | Latvian | Par minētās administrācijas lēmumu Kembridžas Universitāte cēla prasību First‑tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (Administratīvā pirmās instances tiesa (Nodokļu lietu palāta), Apvienotā Karaliste). Šī tiesa, uzskatīdama, ka komisijas maksas, kas saistītas ar attiecīgā fonda pārvaldību, ir izdevumi, kuri izdarīti Kembridžas Universitātes saimnieciskajai darbībai, un ka šajā ziņā tās esot pēdējās minētās pieskaitāmo izmaksu daļa, apmierināja Kembridžas Universitātes prasību. Tā kā šo vērtējumu apstiprināja Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Administratīvā virstiesa (Nodokļu un kanclera kompetences lietu palāta), Apvienotā Karaliste), nodokļu administrācija iesniedza apelācijas sūdzību par šīs pēdējās minētās tiesas nolēmumu Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (Apelācijas tiesa (Anglija un Velsa) (Civillietu palāta), Apvienotā Karaliste). |
17 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/LT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"mokesčių administratorius" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (mokesčių bylų skyrius) (Jungtinė Karalystė)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (Mokesčių ir lordo kanclerio skyrius) (Jungtinė Karalystė)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Anglija ir Velsas) (Civilinių bylų skyrius) (Jungtinė Karalystė)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (mokesčių bylų skyrius) (Jungtinė Karalystė)" [label="Kembridžo universitetas apskundė minėtą sprendimą"];
"First-tier Tribunal (mokesčių bylų skyrius) (Jungtinė Karalystė)" -> "patenkino Kembridžo universiteto prašymą.";
"patenkino Kembridžo universiteto prašymą." -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (Mokesčių ir lordo kanclerio skyrius) (Jungtinė Karalystė)" -> "patenkino Kembridžo universiteto prašymą." [label="patvirtino"];
"patenkino Kembridžo universiteto prašymą." -> "Komisiniai mokesčiai už atitinkamo fondo valdymą sudarė išlaidas, kurios patirtos Kembridžo universiteto ekonominės veiklos tikslais, ir kad jie sudarė dalį Kembridžo universiteto bendrųjų išlaidų." [dir=none];
"mokesčių administratorius" -> "Court of Appeal (Anglija ir Velsas) (Civilinių bylų skyrius) (Jungtinė Karalystė)" [label="apskundė minėtą sprendimą"];
} | Lithuanian | Kembridžo universitetas apskundė minėtą sprendimą First‑tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (Pirmosios instancijos teismas (mokesčių bylų skyrius), Jungtinė Karalystė). Šis teismas, atsižvelgdamas į tai, kad komisiniai mokesčiai už atitinkamo fondo valdymą sudarė išlaidas, kurios patirtos Kembridžo universiteto ekonominės veiklos tikslais, ir kad jie sudarė dalį Kembridžo universiteto bendrųjų išlaidų, patenkino Kembridžo universiteto prašymą. Kadangi šį vertinimą patvirtino Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Aukštesnysis teismas (Mokesčių ir lordo kanclerio skyrius), Jungtinė Karalystė), mokesčių administratorius pateikė apeliacinį skundą dėl šio teismo sprendimo Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (Apeliacinis teismas (Anglija ir Velsas) (Civilinių bylų skyrius), Jungtinė Karalystė). |
18 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HU/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 |
digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Biztosok" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (adójogi tanács) (Egyesült Királyság)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (adóügyi és kancelláriai tanács) (Egyesült Királyság)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Anglia és Wales) (polgári kollégium) (Egyesült Királyság)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (adójogi tanács) (Egyesült Királyság)" [label="A biztosok határozatát megtámadta"];
"First-tier Tribunal (adójogi tanács) (Egyesült Királyság)" -> "helyt adott a cambridge‑i egyetem kérelmének.";
"helyt adott a cambridge‑i egyetem kérelmének." -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (adóügyi és kancelláriai tanács) (Egyesült Királyság)" -> "helyt adott a cambridge‑i egyetem kérelmének." [label="helybenhagyta"];
"helyt adott a cambridge‑i egyetem kérelmének." -> "Az érintett alap kezeléséhez kapcsolódó díjak a cambridge‑i egyetem gazdasági tevékenységeinek szükségletei körében felmerült kiadásoknak minősülnek, és hogy azok e címen ez utóbbi általános költségeinek minősülnek." [dir=none];
"Biztosok" -> "Court of Appeal (Anglia és Wales) (polgári kollégium) (Egyesült Királyság)" [label="Fellebbezést nyújtott be a határozat ellen"];
}
| Hungarian | A cambridge‑i egyetem a First‑tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (elsőfokú bíróság [adójogi tanács], Egyesült Királyság) előtt vitatta az említett adóhatóság határozatát. E bíróság, miután megállapította, hogy az érintett alap kezeléséhez kapcsolódó díjak a cambridge‑i egyetem gazdasági tevékenységeinek szükségletei körében felmerült kiadásoknak minősülnek, és hogy azok e címen ez utóbbi általános költségeinek minősülnek, helyt adott a cambridge‑i egyetem kérelmének. Mivel az Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (másodfokú bíróság [adóügyi és kancelláriai tanács], Egyesült Királyság) helybenhagyta ezt az értékelést, az adóhatóság fellebbezést nyújtott be ez utóbbi bíróság határozatával szemben a Court of Appealhez (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (fellebbviteli bíróság [Anglia és Wales] [polgári kollégium], Egyesült Királyság). |
19 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/MT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"kummissjonijiet" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (Awla Fiskali) (ir-Renju Unit)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (Awla tat-Taxxa u tal-Ekwità) (ir-Renju Unit)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Ingilterra u Wales) (Sezzjoni Ċivili) (ir-Renju Unit)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (Awla Fiskali) (ir-Renju Unit)" [label="Ikkontestat id-deċiżjoni tal-imsemmija amministrazzjoni"];
"First-tier Tribunal (Awla Fiskali) (ir-Renju Unit)" -> "Extracted sentence: Laqgħet it-talba tal-Università ta’ Cambridge.";
"Extracted sentence: Laqgħet it-talba tal-Università ta’ Cambridge." -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (Awla tat-Taxxa u tal-Ekwità) (ir-Renju Unit)" -> "Extracted sentence: Laqgħet it-talba tal-Università ta’ Cambridge." [label="Laqgħet it-talba tal-Università ta’ Cambridge."];
"Extracted sentence: Laqgħet it-talba tal-Università ta’ Cambridge." -> "L-kummissjonijiet għall-ġestjoni tal-fond ikkonċernat kienu jikkostitwixxu spejjeż sostnuti għall-bżonnijiet tal-attivitajiet ekonomiċi tal-Università ta’ Cambridge u li, bħala tali, huma kienu jiffurmaw parti mill-ispejjeż ġenerali ta’ din tal-aħħar." [dir=none];
"kummissjonijiet" -> "Court of Appeal (Ingilterra u Wales) (Sezzjoni Ċivili) (ir-Renju Unit)" [label="appellat mid-deċiżjoni"];
} | Maltese | L-Università ta’ Cambridge ikkontestat id-deċiżjoni tal-imsemmija amministrazzjoni quddiem il-First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (il-Qorti tal-Ewwel Istanza (Awla Fiskali), ir-Renju Unit). Din il-qorti, peress li qieset li l-kummissjonijiet għall-ġestjoni tal-fond ikkonċernat kienu jikkostitwixxu spejjeż sostnuti għall-bżonnijiet tal-attivitajiet ekonomiċi tal-Università ta’ Cambridge u li, bħala tali, huma kienu jiffurmaw parti mill-ispejjeż ġenerali ta’ din tal-aħħar, laqgħet it-talba tal-Università ta’ Cambridge. Peress li din l-evalwazzjoni ġiet ikkonfermata mill-Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (il-Qorti Superjuri (Awla tat-Taxxa u tal-Ekwità, ir-Renju Unit)), l-amministrazzjoni fiskali appellat mid-deċiżjoni ta’ din l-aħħar qorti quddiem il-Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (il-Qorti tal-Appell (Ingilterra u Wales) (Sezzjoni Ċivili), ir-Renju Unit). |
20 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/NL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"belastingdienst" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (belastingrechter) (Verenigd Koninkrijk)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (belastingrechter in tweede aanleg) (Verenigd Koninkrijk)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Engeland en Wales) (rechter in tweede aanleg in burgerlijke zaken) (Verenigd Koninkrijk)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (belastingrechter) (Verenigd Koninkrijk)" [label="Heeft de beslissing van die dienst aangevochten"];
"First-tier Tribunal (belastingrechter) (Verenigd Koninkrijk)" -> "Heeft de vordering van de universiteit van Cambridge toegewezen";
"Heeft de vordering van de universiteit van Cambridge toegewezen" -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (belastingrechter in tweede aanleg) (Verenigd Koninkrijk)" -> "Heeft de vordering van de universiteit van Cambridge toegewezen" [label="bevestigd"];
"Heeft de vordering van de universiteit van Cambridge toegewezen" -> "De beheersvergoedingen voor het betrokken fonds uitgaven waren die voor de universiteit waren opgekomen ten behoeve van haar economische activiteiten en derhalve deel uitmaakten van haar algemene kosten." [dir=none];
"belastingdienst" -> "Court of Appeal (Engeland en Wales) (rechter in tweede aanleg in burgerlijke zaken) (Verenigd Koninkrijk)" [label="Heeft de beslissing van die dienst aangevochten"];
} | Dutch | De universiteit van Cambridge heeft de beslissing van die dienst aangevochten bij de First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) [belastingrechter in eerste aanleg, Verenigd Koninkrijk]. Die rechter heeft de vordering van de universiteit van Cambridge toegewezen en heeft geoordeeld dat de beheersvergoedingen voor het betrokken fonds uitgaven waren die voor de universiteit waren opgekomen ten behoeve van haar economische activiteiten en derhalve deel uitmaakten van haar algemene kosten. Deze beoordeling is door de Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) [belastingrechter in tweede aanleg, Verenigd Koninkrijk] bevestigd, waarna de belastingdienst hoger beroep heeft ingesteld bij de Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) [rechter in tweede aanleg in burgerlijke zaken, Engeland en Wales, Verenigd Koninkrijk]. |
21 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 |
digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Komisarze" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (izba podatkowa) (Zjednoczone Królestwo)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (izbę podatkową i kanclerską) (Zjednoczone Królestwo)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Anglia i Walia) (wydziału cywilnego) (Zjednoczone Królestwo)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (izba podatkowa) (Zjednoczone Królestwo)" [label="Zaskarżenie decyzji komisarzy"];
"First-tier Tribunal (izba podatkowa) (Zjednoczone Królestwo)" -> "Uwzględnił żądanie uniwersytetu w Cambridge.";
"Uwzględnił żądanie uniwersytetu w Cambridge." -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (izbę podatkową i kanclerską) (Zjednoczone Królestwo)" -> "Uwzględnił żądanie uniwersytetu w Cambridge." [label="uwzględnił żądanie"];
"Uwzględnił żądanie uniwersytetu w Cambridge." -> "Opłaty za zarządzanie funduszem stanowiły wydatki poniesione na potrzeby działalności gospodarczej uniwersytetu w Cambridge oraz że z tego tytułu były częścią jego kosztów ogólnych." [dir=none];
"Komisarze" -> "Court of Appeal (Anglia i Walia) (wydziału cywilnego) (Zjednoczone Królestwo)" [label="Zaskarżył decyzję"];
}
| Polish | Uniwersytet w Cambridge zaskarżył decyzję tego organu do First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) [sądu pierwszej instancji (izby podatkowej), Zjednoczone Królestwo]. Sąd ten, uznając, że opłaty za zarządzanie funduszem stanowiły wydatki poniesione na potrzeby działalności gospodarczej uniwersytetu w Cambridge oraz że z tego tytułu były częścią jego kosztów ogólnych, uwzględnił żądanie uniwersytetu w Cambridge. Ponieważ stanowisko to zostało potwierdzone przez Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) [sąd wyższej instancji (izbę podatkową i kanclerską, Zjednoczone Królestwo)], organ podatkowy wniósł odwołanie od orzeczenia tegoż sądu do Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) [sądu apelacyjnego (Anglia i Walia) (wydziału cywilnego), Zjednoczone Królestwo]. |
22 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Administração Fiscal" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (Secção Tributária) (Reino Unido)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (Secção Tributária e da Chancelaria) (Reino Unido)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Inglaterra e País de Gales) (Secção Cível) (Reino Unido)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (Secção Tributária) (Reino Unido)" [label="Impugnou a decisão da Administração Fiscal"];
"First-tier Tribunal (Secção Tributária) (Reino Unido)" -> "deu provimento ao recurso";
"deu provimento ao recurso" -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (Secção Tributária e da Chancelaria) (Reino Unido)" -> "deu provimento ao recurso" [label="deu provimento ao recurso"];
"deu provimento ao recurso" -> "As comissões de gestão do fundo em causa constituíam despesas realizadas para a realização das atividades económicas da Universidade de Cambridge e que, a este título, fazem parte dos seus custos gerais." [dir=none];
"Administração Fiscal" -> "Court of Appeal (Inglaterra e País de Gales) (Secção Cível) (Reino Unido)" [label="Impugnou a decisão"];
} | Portuguese | A Universidade de Cambridge impugnou a decisão da Administração Fiscal no First‑tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) [Tribunal de Primeira Instância (Secção Tributária), Reino Unido]. Este tribunal, considerando que as comissões de gestão do fundo em causa constituíam despesas realizadas para a realização das atividades económicas da Universidade de Cambridge e que, a este título, fazem parte dos seus custos gerais, deu provimento ao recurso da Universidade de Cambridge. Este entendimento foi confirmado por decisão do Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) [Tribunal Superior (Secção Tributária e da Chancelaria), Reino Unido], da qual a Administração Fiscal interpôs recurso para a Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) [Tribunal de Recurso (Inglaterra e País de Gales) (Secção Cível), Reino Unido]. |
23 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/RO/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"comisioanele" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (Camera fiscală) (Regatul Unit)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (Camera fiscală și a cancelariei) (Regatul Unit)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Anglia și Țara Galilor) (Secția civilă) (Regatul Unit)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (Camera fiscală) (Regatul Unit)" [label="a contestat decizia respectivei administrații"];
"First-tier Tribunal (Camera fiscală) (Regatul Unit)" -> "a admis cererea";
"a admis cererea" -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (Camera fiscală și a cancelariei) (Regatul Unit)" -> "a admis cererea" [label="a admis cererea Universității din Cambridge."];
"a admis cererea" -> "Comisioanele referitoare la administrarea fondului în cauză constituiau cheltuieli suportate pentru nevoile activităților economice ale Universității din Cambridge și că, în această calitate, ele făceau parte din cheltuielile generale ale acesteia din urmă." [dir=none];
"comisioanele" -> "Court of Appeal (Anglia și Țara Galilor) (Secția civilă) (Regatul Unit)" [label="a declarat apel împotriva deciziei"];
} | Romanian | Universitatea din Cambridge a contestat decizia respectivei administrații la First‑tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) [Tribunalul de Primă Instanță (Camera fiscală), Regatul Unit]. Această instanță, considerând că comisioanele referitoare la administrarea fondului în cauză constituiau cheltuieli suportate pentru nevoile activităților economice ale Universității din Cambridge și că, în această calitate, ele făceau parte din cheltuielile generale ale acesteia din urmă, a admis cererea Universității din Cambridge. Întrucât această apreciere a fost confirmată de Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) [Tribunalul Superior (Camera fiscală și a cancelariei), Regatul Unit], administrația fiscală a declarat apel împotriva deciziei acestei din urmă instanțe în fața Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) [Curtea de Apel (Anglia și Țara Galilor) (Secția civilă), Regatul Unit]. |
24 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SK/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 |
digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Napadol rozhodnutie komisárov" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (daňový senát) (Spojené kráľovstvo)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (oddelenie pre daňové a majetkové spory) (Spojené kráľovstvo)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Anglicko a Wales) (občianskoprávny senát) (Spojené kráľovstvo)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (daňový senát) (Spojené kráľovstvo)" [label="Komisári"];
"First-tier Tribunal (daňový senát) (Spojené kráľovstvo)" -> "návrhu tejto univerzity vyhovel.";
"návrhu tejto univerzity vyhovel." -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (oddelenie pre daňové a majetkové spory) (Spojené kráľovstvo)" -> "návrhu tejto univerzity vyhovel." [label="vyhovel"];
"návrhu tejto univerzity vyhovel." -> "Poplatky za správu príslušného fondu predstavujú výdavky vynaložené pre potreby hospodárskej činnosti univerzity v Cambridge a ako také sú súčasťou všeobecných výdavkov tejto univerzity." [dir=none];
"Napadol rozhodnutie komisárov" -> "Court of Appeal (Anglicko a Wales) (občianskoprávny senát) (Spojené kráľovstvo)" [label="napadla rozhodnutie"];
}
| Slovak | Univerzita v Cambridge napadla rozhodnutie uvedeného úradu na First‑tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) [prvostupňový súd (daňový senát), Spojené kráľovstvo]. Tento súd, ktorý zastával názor, že poplatky za správu príslušného fondu predstavujú výdavky vynaložené pre potreby hospodárskej činnosti univerzity v Cambridge a ako také sú súčasťou všeobecných výdavkov tejto univerzity, návrhu tejto univerzity vyhovel. Keďže toto posúdenie potvrdil aj Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) [druhostupňový súd (oddelenie pre daňové a majetkové spory), Spojené kráľovstvo], daňový úrad podal odvolanie proti rozsudku tohto súdu na Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) [Odvolací súd (Anglicko a Wales) (občianskoprávny senát), Spojené kráľovstvo]. |
25 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"davčna uprava" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (davčni oddelek) (Združeno kraljestvo)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (oddelek za davčne in gospodarske spore) (Združeno kraljestvo)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Anglija in Wales) (civilni oddelek) (Združeno kraljestvo)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (davčni oddelek) (Združeno kraljestvo)" [label="Univerza v Cambridgeu je odločbo te uprave izpodbijala"];
"First-tier Tribunal (davčni oddelek) (Združeno kraljestvo)" -> "ugodilo zahtevku univerze v Cambridgeu.";
"ugodilo zahtevku univerze v Cambridgeu." -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (oddelek za davčne in gospodarske spore) (Združeno kraljestvo)" -> "ugodilo zahtevku univerze v Cambridgeu." [label="ugodilo zahtevku univerze v Cambridgeu. To presojo je potrdilo Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (višje sodišče, oddelek za davčne in gospodarske spore, Združeno kraljestvo)"];
"ugodilo zahtevku univerze v Cambridgeu." -> "Provizije v zvezi z upravljanjem zadevnega sklada so bile stroški za potrebe ekonomskih dejavnosti univerze v Cambridgeu in so bili iz tega naslova del splošnih stroškov te univerze." [dir=none];
"davčna uprava" -> "Court of Appeal (Anglija in Wales) (civilni oddelek) (Združeno kraljestvo)" [label="je odločbo te uprave izpodbijala"];
} | Slovenian | Univerza v Cambridgeu je odločbo te uprave izpodbijala pri First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (prvostopenjsko sodišče (davčni oddelek), Združeno kraljestvo). To sodišče je ocenilo, da so bile provizije v zvezi z upravljanjem zadevnega sklada stroški za potrebe ekonomskih dejavnosti univerze v Cambridgeu in da so bili iz tega naslova del splošnih stroškov te univerze ter ugodilo zahtevku univerze v Cambridgeu. To presojo je potrdilo Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (višje sodišče, oddelek za davčne in gospodarske spore, Združeno kraljestvo)), zato je davčna uprava zoper odločbo tega sodišča vložila pritožbo pri Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (pritožbeno sodišče (Anglija in Wales) (civilni oddelek), Združeno kraljestvo). |
26 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FI/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"verohallinto" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (verojaosto) (Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (vero- ja sosiaalijaosto) (Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (Englannin ja Walesin) (siviiliasioiden osasto) (Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (verojaosto) (Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta)" [label="riitautti tämän päätöksen"];
"First-tier Tribunal (verojaosto) (Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta)" -> "Hyväksyi Cambridgen yliopiston vaatimuksen.";
"Hyväksyi Cambridgen yliopiston vaatimuksen." -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (vero- ja sosiaalijaosto) (Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta)" -> "Hyväksyi Cambridgen yliopiston vaatimuksen." [label="vahvisti"];
"Hyväksyi Cambridgen yliopiston vaatimuksen." -> "Mainitun rahaston hoidosta aiheutuneet maksut olivat Cambridgen yliopiston liiketoimintaan liittyviä tarpeita koskevia kuluja ja että tällä perusteella ne olivat osa yliopiston yleiskustannuksia." [dir=none];
"verohallinto" -> "Court of Appeal (Englannin ja Walesin) (siviiliasioiden osasto) (Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta)" [label="riitautti tämän päätöksen"];
} | Finnish | Cambridgen yliopisto riitautti tämän päätöksen First-tier Tribunalissa (Tax Chamber) (alioikeus, verojaosto; Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta). Kyseinen tuomioistuin katsoi, että mainitun rahaston hoidosta aiheutuneet maksut olivat Cambridgen yliopiston liiketoimintaan liittyviä tarpeita koskevia kuluja ja että tällä perusteella ne olivat osa yliopiston yleiskustannuksia, ja hyväksyi Cambridgen yliopiston vaatimuksen. Koska Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (ylioikeus, vero- ja sosiaalijaosto; Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta) vahvisti tämän kannan, verohallinto valitti kyseisen tuomioistuimen ratkaisusta Court of Appealiin (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (Englannin ja Walesin ylioikeus (siviiliasioiden osasto), Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta). |
27 | Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division).
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads. | Case C-316/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SV/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0316 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"University of Cambridge" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"skattemyndigheten" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"First-tier Tribunal (skatteavdelningen) (Förenade kungariket)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Upper Tribunal (skatte- och finansavdelningen) (Förenade kungariket)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Court of Appeal (England och Wales) (avdelningen för tvistemål och förvaltningsmål) (Förenade kungariket)" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"University of Cambridge" -> "First-tier Tribunal (skatteavdelningen) (Förenade kungariket)" [label="Universitetet i Cambridge överklagade skattemyndighetens beslut"];
"First-tier Tribunal (skatteavdelningen) (Förenade kungariket)" -> "medges det yrkade avdraget.";
"medges det yrkade avdraget." -> "University of Cambridge";
"Upper Tribunal (skatte- och finansavdelningen) (Förenade kungariket)" -> "medges det yrkade avdraget." [label="fastställt"];
"medges det yrkade avdraget." -> "Avgifterna för förvaltningen av den berörda fonden utgjorde kostnader för den ekonomiska verksamheten vid universitetet i Cambridge, och att de i denna egenskap utgjorde en del av universitetets allmänna omkostnader." [dir=none];
"skattemyndigheten" -> "Court of Appeal (England och Wales) (avdelningen för tvistemål och förvaltningsmål) (Förenade kungariket)" [label="Universitetet i Cambridge överklagade skattemyndighetens beslut"];
} | Swedish | Universitetet i Cambridge överklagade skattemyndighetens beslut till First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (förstainstansdomstolen (skatteavdelningen), Förenade kungariket). Då förstainstansdomstolen fann att avgifterna för förvaltningen av den berörda fonden utgjorde kostnader för den ekonomiska verksamheten vid universitetet i Cambridge, och att de i denna egenskap utgjorde en del av universitetets allmänna omkostnader, slog den fast att universitetet i Cambridge skulle medges det yrkade avdraget. Efter det att Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Överdomstolen (skatte- och finansavdelningen, Förenade kungariket)) fastställt denna bedömning överklagade skattemyndigheten avgörandet från den sistnämnda domstolen till Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (Appellationsdomstolen (för England och Wales) (avdelningen för tvistemål och förvaltningsmål), Förenade kungariket). |
28 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Bulgarian court" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Bulgarian court" -> "Refused to place Mr Milev in pre-trial detention";
"Refused to place Mr Milev in pre-trial detention" -> "The first case concerning a bank robbery with violence";
"Refused to place Mr Milev in pre-trial detention" -> "The statements of the main prosecution witness, Mr BP, were not credible." [dir=none];
} | English | The referring court states that, in the first of those cases, which concerns a bank robbery with violence, a Bulgarian court refused to place Mr Milev in pre-trial detention (remand him in custody), on the ground that the statements of the main prosecution witness, Mr BP, were not credible. A judicial decision as to the substance of that case has yet to be made. |
29 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/BG/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"българският съд" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"българският съд" -> "отказва да задържи под стража г‑н Милев";
"отказва да задържи под стража г‑н Милев" -> "първото от тях за участие в грабеж на банка";
"отказва да задържи под стража г‑н Милев" -> "Показанията на основния свидетел на обвинението, г‑н BP, са недостоверни." [dir=none];
} | Bulgarian | Във връзка с първото от тях за участие в грабеж на банка тя посочва, че българският съд отказва да задържи под стража г‑н Милев, тъй като показанията на основния свидетел на обвинението, г‑н BP, са недостоверни. Все още не е постановен акт по същество по това дело. |
30 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"un tribunal búlgaro" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"un tribunal búlgaro" -> "rechazó decretar el ingreso en prisión preventiva del Sr. Milev";
"rechazó decretar el ingreso en prisión preventiva del Sr. Milev" -> "en el primero de ellos, referido a un robo con violencia a un banco";
"rechazó decretar el ingreso en prisión preventiva del Sr. Milev" -> "la falta de credibilidad del testimonio prestado por el principal testigo de cargo, el Sr. BP." [dir=none];
} | Spanish | Dicho órgano jurisdiccional indica que, en el primero de ellos, referido a un robo con violencia a un banco, un tribunal búlgaro rechazó decretar el ingreso en prisión preventiva del Sr. Milev, dada la falta de credibilidad del testimonio prestado por el principal testigo de cargo, el Sr. BP. Aún no ha recaído ninguna resolución judicial sobre el fondo en este asunto. |
31 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/CS/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bulharský soud" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bulharský soud" -> "odmítl vzít E. Mileva do vazby";
"odmítl vzít E. Mileva do vazby" -> "První z těchto řízení, jež se týká loupeže v bance";
"odmítl vzít E. Mileva do vazby" -> "výpověď hlavního svědka, BP, nebyla věrohodná." [dir=none];
} | Czech | Ohledně prvního z těchto řízení, jež se týká loupeže v bance, předkládající soud uvádí, že bulharský soud odmítl vzít E. Mileva do vazby vzhledem k tomu, že výpověď hlavního svědka, BP, nebyla věrohodná. V této věci zatím nebylo vydáno žádné meritorní soudní rozhodnutí. |
32 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DA/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bulgarsk ret" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bulgarsk ret" -> "afviste at varetægtsfængsle Emil Milev";
"afviste at varetægtsfængsle Emil Milev" -> "I den første af disse sager vedrørende et røveri af en bank";
"afviste at varetægtsfængsle Emil Milev" -> "Vidneudsagnene fra anklagemyndighedens hovedvidne, BP, ikke var troværdige." [dir=none];
} | Danish | I den første af disse sager vedrørende et røveri af en bank har den forelæggende ret anført, at en bulgarsk ret afslog at varetægtsfængsle Emil Milev, fordi vidneudsagnene fra anklagemyndighedens hovedvidne, BP, ikke var troværdige. Der er endnu ikke blevet truffet nogen retslig afgørelse om realiteten i den nævnte sag. |
33 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bulgarisches Gericht" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bulgarisches Gericht" -> "habe ein bulgarisches Gericht die Anordnung von Untersuchungshaft gegen Herrn Milev mit der Begründung abgelehnt";
"habe ein bulgarisches Gericht die Anordnung von Untersuchungshaft gegen Herrn Milev mit der Begründung abgelehnt" -> "Im ersten dieser Verfahren, das einen Bankraub betreffe";
"habe ein bulgarisches Gericht die Anordnung von Untersuchungshaft gegen Herrn Milev mit der Begründung abgelehnt" -> "die Aussage des Hauptbelastungszeugen, Herrn BP, nicht glaubhaft sei." [dir=none];
} | German | Im ersten dieser Verfahren, das einen Bankraub betreffe, habe ein bulgarisches Gericht die Anordnung von Untersuchungshaft gegen Herrn Milev mit der Begründung abgelehnt, dass die Aussage des Hauptbelastungszeugen, Herrn BP, nicht glaubhaft sei. Eine gerichtliche Entscheidung in der Sache sei in diesem Verfahren noch nicht ergangen. |
34 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ET/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Bulgaaria kohus" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Bulgaaria kohus" -> "keeldus E. Milevit vahistamast";
"keeldus E. Milevit vahistamast" -> "Esimese kriminaalasja kohta, mis puudutab pangaröövi";
"keeldus E. Milevit vahistamast" -> "Põhitunnistaja BP ütlused ei olnud usaldusväärsed." [dir=none];
} | Estonian | Esimese kriminaalasja kohta, mis puudutab pangaröövi, täheldab ta, et Bulgaaria kohus keeldus E. Milevit vahistamast põhjusel, et põhitunnistaja BP ütlused ei olnud usaldusväärsed. Selles kohtuasjas ei ole veel tehtud mingit sisulist otsust. |
35 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"αιτούν δικαστήριο" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"αιτούν δικαστήριο" -> "το αιτούν δικαστήριο αρνήθηκε να θέσει τον ο E. Milev υπό προσωρινή κράτηση";
"το αιτούν δικαστήριο αρνήθηκε να θέσει τον ο E. Milev υπό προσωρινή κράτηση" -> "Στο πλαίσιο της πρώτης από τις διαδικασίες αυτές, η οποία αφορά ληστεία τράπεζας με χρήση βίας";
"το αιτούν δικαστήριο αρνήθηκε να θέσει τον ο E. Milev υπό προσωρινή κράτηση" -> "οι καταθέσεις του BP, βασικού μάρτυρα κατηγορίας, δεν ήταν αξιόπιστες." [dir=none];
} | Greek | Στο πλαίσιο της πρώτης από τις διαδικασίες αυτές, η οποία αφορά ληστεία τράπεζας με χρήση βίας, το αιτούν δικαστήριο αρνήθηκε να θέσει τον ο E. Milev υπό προσωρινή κράτηση, για τον λόγο ότι οι καταθέσεις του BP, βασικού μάρτυρα κατηγορίας, δεν ήταν αξιόπιστες. Στην εν λόγω υπόθεση δεν έχει ακόμη εκδοθεί δικαστική απόφαση επί της ουσίας. |
36 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"une juridiction bulgare" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"une juridiction bulgare" -> "a refusé de placer M. Milev en détention provisoire";
"a refusé de placer M. Milev en détention provisoire" -> "Dans la première de ces affaires, relative au vol avec violence d’une banque";
"a refusé de placer M. Milev en détention provisoire" -> "Les dépositions du principal témoin à charge, M. BP, n’étaient pas crédibles." [dir=none];
} | French | Dans la première de ces affaires, relative au vol avec violence d’une banque, elle indique qu’une juridiction bulgare a refusé de placer M. Milev en détention provisoire, au motif que les dépositions du principal témoin à charge, M. BP, n’étaient pas crédibles. Aucune décision juridictionnelle sur le fond n’a encore été rendue dans ladite affaire. |
37 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bugarski sud" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bugarski sud" -> "odbio E. Milevu odrediti istražni zatvor";
"odbio E. Milevu odrediti istražni zatvor" -> "On navodi da je u prvom od tih predmeta, koji se odnosi na razbojništvo banke";
"odbio E. Milevu odrediti istražni zatvor" -> "Iskazi glavnog svjedoka optužbe, BP‑a, nisu vjerodostojni." [dir=none];
} | Croatian | On navodi da je u prvom od tih predmeta, koji se odnosi na razbojništvo banke, bugarski sud odbio E. Milevu odrediti istražni zatvor s obrazloženjem da iskazi glavnog svjedoka optužbe, BP‑a, nisu vjerodostojni. U navedenom predmetu još nije donesena nikakva sudska odluka o meritumu. |
38 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"giudice bulgaro" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"giudice bulgaro" -> "ha respinto la richiesta di sottoporre il sig. Milev alla misura della custodia cautelare";
"ha respinto la richiesta di sottoporre il sig. Milev alla misura della custodia cautelare" -> "Nell’ambito del primo di tali due procedimenti, relativo ad una rapina in una banca";
"ha respinto la richiesta di sottoporre il sig. Milev alla misura della custodia cautelare" -> "Le deposizioni del principale testimone a carico, il sig. BP, non erano credibili." [dir=none];
} | Italian | Nell’ambito del primo di tali due procedimenti, relativo ad una rapina in una banca, il giudice del rinvio riferisce che un giudice bulgaro ha respinto la richiesta di sottoporre il sig. Milev alla misura della custodia cautelare, in quanto le deposizioni del principale testimone a carico, il sig. BP, non erano credibili. In detto procedimento non è stata ancora emessa alcuna decisione giudiziaria sul merito. |
39 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/LV/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Bulgārijas tiesa" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Bulgārijas tiesa" -> "Bulgārijas tiesa noraidīja apcietinājuma piemērošanu E. Milev";
"Bulgārijas tiesa noraidīja apcietinājuma piemērošanu E. Milev" -> "Pirmo no šīm lietām saistībā ar bankas aplaupīšanu";
"Bulgārijas tiesa noraidīja apcietinājuma piemērošanu E. Milev" -> "Viena no galvenajiem apsūdzības lieciniekiem BP liecības nav ticamas." [dir=none];
} | Latvian | Attiecībā uz pirmo no šīm lietām saistībā ar bankas aplaupīšanu iesniedzējtiesa norāda, ka Bulgārijas tiesa noraidīja apcietinājuma piemērošanu E. Milev, motivējot ar to, ka viena no galvenajiem apsūdzības lieciniekiem BP liecības nav ticamas. Minētajā lietā vēl nav pieņemts neviens tiesas nolēmums pēc būtības. |
40 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/LT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 |
digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Bulgarijos teismas" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Bulgarijos teismas" -> "E. Milev nebuvo paleistas.";
"E. Milev nebuvo paleistas." -> "Pirmoji byla dėl smurtinio banko apiplėšimo";
"E. Milev nebuvo paleistas." -> "liudytojo BP parodymai nepatikimi." [dir=none];
}
| Lithuanian | Dėl antros baudžiamosios bylos, kurioje pagrindinis liudytojas taip pat yra BP ir kuri susijusi su vadovavimu plėšimus vykdžiusiam nusikalstamam susivienijimui, šis teismas nurodo, kad E. Milev buvo suimtas nuo 2013 m. lapkričio 24 d. iki 2018 m. sausio 9 d., t. y. nuo momento, kai buvo išteisintas dėl visų jam pareikštų kaltinimų, nes Bulgarijos teismas nusprendė, kad liudytojo BP parodymai nepatikimi. Tačiau E. Milev nebuvo paleistas. |
41 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HU/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 |
digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bolgár bíróság" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bolgár bíróság" -> "E. Milevet azonban nem engedték szabadon.";
"E. Milevet azonban nem engedték szabadon." -> "Az első, erőszakkal elkövetett bankrablásra vonatkozó eset";
"E. Milevet azonban nem engedték szabadon." -> "BP tanúvallomásait a bolgár bíróság nem tekintette hitelesnek." [dir=none];
}
| Hungarian | Ami a második – rablások elkövetése céljából létrehozott bűnszervezet irányítására vonatkozó – ügyet illeti, amelyben szintén BP az elsődleges terhelő tanú, a kérdést előterjesztő bíróság jelzi, hogy E. Milevet 2013. november 24‑től 2018. január 9‑ig fogva tartották, amikor is valamennyi vádpont alól felmentették, mivel BP tanúvallomásait a bolgár bíróság nem tekintette hitelesnek. E. Milevet azonban nem engedték szabadon. |
42 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/MT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"qorti Bulgara" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"qorti Bulgara" -> "Extracted sentence: E. Milev ġie arrestat mill-24 ta’ Novembru 2013 sad-9 ta’ Jannar 2018, data li fiha huwa nħeles mill-akkużi kollha miġjuba kontrih minħabba li x-xhieda ta’ BP ma kinitx meqjusa bħala kredibbli mill-qorti Bulgara.";
"Extracted sentence: E. Milev ġie arrestat mill-24 ta’ Novembru 2013 sad-9 ta’ Jannar 2018, data li fiha huwa nħeles mill-akkużi kollha miġjuba kontrih minħabba li x-xhieda ta’ BP ma kinitx meqjusa bħala kredibbli mill-qorti Bulgara." -> "Fit-tieni kawża, li tikkonċerna t-tmexxija ta’ grupp kriminali organizzat sabiex jitwettaq is-serq bi vjolenza";
"Extracted sentence: E. Milev ġie arrestat mill-24 ta’ Novembru 2013 sad-9 ta’ Jannar 2018, data li fiha huwa nħeles mill-akkużi kollha miġjuba kontrih minħabba li x-xhieda ta’ BP ma kinitx meqjusa bħala kredibbli mill-qorti Bulgara." -> "x-xhieda ta’ BP ma kinitx meqjusa bħala kredibbli" [dir=none];
} | Maltese | Fit-tieni kawża, li tikkonċerna t-tmexxija ta’ grupp kriminali organizzat sabiex jitwettaq is-serq bi vjolenza, li fil-kuntest tagħha BP huwa wkoll ix-xhud prinċipali, din tesponi li E. Milev ġie arrestat mill-24 ta’ Novembru 2013 sad-9 ta’ Jannar 2018, data li fiha huwa nħeles mill-akkużi kollha miġjuba kontrih minħabba li x-xhieda ta’ BP ma kinitx meqjusa bħala kredibbli mill-qorti Bulgara. Madankollu, dan ma kienx inħeles. |
43 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/NL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Bulgaarse rechter" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Bulgaarse rechter" -> "heeft geweigerd Milev in voorlopige hechtenis te nemen";
"heeft geweigerd Milev in voorlopige hechtenis te nemen" -> "In de eerste van deze zaken, die over een bankroof gaat";
"heeft geweigerd Milev in voorlopige hechtenis te nemen" -> "De verklaringen van de belangrijkste getuige à charge, BP, waren niet geloofwaardig." [dir=none];
} | Dutch | In de eerste van deze zaken, die over een bankroof gaat, wijst hij erop dat een Bulgaarse rechter heeft geweigerd Milev in voorlopige hechtenis te nemen, op grond dat de verklaringen van de belangrijkste getuige à charge, BP, niet geloofwaardig waren. In de betreffende zaak is nog geen rechterlijke beslissing ten gronde genomen. |
44 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"sąd bułgarski" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"sąd bułgarski" -> "sąd bułgarski odmówił zastosowania wobec E. Mileva tymczasowego aresztowania";
"sąd bułgarski odmówił zastosowania wobec E. Mileva tymczasowego aresztowania" -> "Pierwszej z tych spraw, dotyczącej rozboju dokonanego w banku";
"sąd bułgarski odmówił zastosowania wobec E. Mileva tymczasowego aresztowania" -> "Zeznania głównego świadka oskarżenia, BP, nie były wiarygodne." [dir=none];
} | Polish | Jak wskazuje, w pierwszej z tych spraw, dotyczącej rozboju dokonanego w banku, sąd bułgarski odmówił zastosowania wobec E. Mileva tymczasowego aresztowania ze względu na to, że zeznania głównego świadka oskarżenia, BP, nie były wiarygodne. W tej sprawie nie wydano jeszcze żadnego orzeczenia co do istoty. |
45 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 |
digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"órgão jurisdicional búlgaro" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"órgão jurisdicional búlgaro" -> "No entanto, não foi posto em liberdade.";
"No entanto, não foi posto em liberdade." -> "O primeiro caso de assalto a um banco com violência";
"No entanto, não foi posto em liberdade." -> "as declarações de BP não terem sido consideradas credíveis" [dir=none];
}
| Portuguese | No segundo processo, que se refere à direção de uma associação criminosa, constituída com o objetivo de cometer roubos, no âmbito da qual BP é também a principal testemunha de acusação, informa que E. Milev esteve preso de 24 de novembro de 2013 a 9 de janeiro de 2018, data em que foi absolvido de todas as acusações contra ele deduzidas, pelo facto de as declarações de BP não terem sido consideradas credíveis pelo órgão jurisdicional búlgaro. No entanto, não foi posto em liberdade. |
46 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/RO/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"instanță bulgară" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"instanță bulgară" -> "a refuzat plasarea domnului Milev în arest preventiv";
"a refuzat plasarea domnului Milev în arest preventiv" -> "În prima dintre aceste cauze, referitoare la tâlhăria dintr‑o bancă";
"a refuzat plasarea domnului Milev în arest preventiv" -> "Depozițiile principalului martor al acuzării, domnul BP, nu erau credibile." [dir=none];
} | Romanian | În prima dintre aceste cauze, referitoare la tâlhăria dintr‑o bancă, ea arată că o instanță bulgară a refuzat plasarea domnului Milev în arest preventiv, pentru motivul că depozițiile principalului martor al acuzării, domnul BP, nu erau credibile. Nicio hotărâre judecătorească pe fond nu a fost încă pronunțată în cauza menționată. |
47 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SK/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bulharský súd" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bulharský súd" -> "odmietol vziať pána Mileva do väzby";
"odmietol vziať pána Mileva do väzby" -> "V prvej z týchto vecí týkajúcej sa bankovej lúpeže";
"odmietol vziať pána Mileva do väzby" -> "Výpovede hlavného svedka v jeho neprospech, pána BP, neboli vierohodné." [dir=none];
} | Slovak | V prvej z týchto vecí týkajúcej sa bankovej lúpeže vnútroštátny súd uvádza, že bulharský súd odmietol vziať pána Mileva do väzby z dôvodu, že výpovede hlavného svedka v jeho neprospech, pána BP, neboli vierohodné. Nijaké súdne rozhodnutie vo veci samej ešte nebolo v uvedenej veci vydané. |
48 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bolgarsko sodišče" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bolgarsko sodišče" -> "bolgarsko sodišče zavrnilo odreditev pripora E. Mileva";
"bolgarsko sodišče zavrnilo odreditev pripora E. Mileva" -> "V prvem od teh postopkov, ki se nanaša na rop banke";
"bolgarsko sodišče zavrnilo odreditev pripora E. Mileva" -> "Izpovedbe glavne obremenilne priče, osebe BP, niso bile verodostojne." [dir=none];
} | Slovenian | V prvem od teh postopkov, ki se nanaša na rop banke, predložitveno sodišče navaja, da je bolgarsko sodišče zavrnilo odreditev pripora E. Mileva, ker izpovedbe glavne obremenilne priče, osebe BP, niso bile verodostojne. V navedenem postopku še ni bila izdana nobena meritorna sodna odločba. |
49 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FI/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bulgarialainen tuomioistuin" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bulgarialainen tuomioistuin" -> "on kieltäytynyt määräämästä Mileviä tutkintavankeuteen";
"on kieltäytynyt määräämästä Mileviä tutkintavankeuteen" -> "Ensimmäisessä, joka koskee pankkiryöstöä";
"on kieltäytynyt määräämästä Mileviä tutkintavankeuteen" -> "Mileviä vastaan todistaneen päätodistajan BP:n todistajanlausunnot eivät olleet uskottavia." [dir=none];
} | Finnish | Ennakkoratkaisua pyytänyt tuomioistuin toteaa, että näistä ensimmäisessä, joka koskee pankkiryöstöä, bulgarialainen tuomioistuin on kieltäytynyt määräämästä Mileviä tutkintavankeuteen sillä perusteella, etteivät Mileviä vastaan todistaneen päätodistajan BP:n todistajanlausunnot olleet uskottavia. Mainitussa asiassa ei ole annettu vielä mitään tuomioistuinratkaisua asiakysymyksestä. |
50 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SV/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bulgarisk domstol" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bulgarisk domstol" -> "beslutade att inte häkta Emil Milev";
"beslutade att inte häkta Emil Milev" -> "det första av dessa mål, som rör ett bankrån";
"beslutade att inte häkta Emil Milev" -> "Uppgifterna från huvudvittnet, BP, inte var tillförlitliga." [dir=none];
} | Swedish | Avseende det första av dessa mål, som rör ett bankrån, har den hänskjutande domstolen angett att en bulgarisk domstol beslutade att inte häkta Emil Milev med motiveringen att uppgifterna från huvudvittnet, BP, inte var tillförlitliga. Ännu har inget domstolsavgörande i sak meddelats i nämnda mål. |
51 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Bulgarian court" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Bulgarian court" -> "Mr Milev was acquitted of all charges against him on the ground that the statements of Mr BP were not deemed credible.";
"Mr Milev was acquitted of all charges against him on the ground that the statements of Mr BP were not deemed credible." -> "The second case concerns the control of a criminal organisation set up to commit robberies with violence";
"The second case concerns the control of a criminal organisation set up to commit robberies with violence" -> "Mr BP is again the main prosecution witness" [dir=none];
} | English | In the second case, which concerns the control of a criminal organisation set up to commit robberies with violence, in the context of which Mr BP is again the main prosecution witness, the referring court states that Mr Milev was detained from 24 November 2013 to 9 January 2018, when he was acquitted of all charges against him on the ground that the statements of Mr BP were not deemed credible by the Bulgarian court. Mr Milev was not, however, released. |
52 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/BG/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"българският съд" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"българският съд" -> "г-н Милев е оправдан по всички обвинения, тъй като българският съд не приема показанията на г-н ВР за достоверни.";
"г-н Милев е оправдан по всички обвинения, тъй като българският съд не приема показанията на г-н ВР за достоверни." -> "второто дело, което е за ръководене на организирана престъпна група за извършване на грабежи";
"второто дело, което е за ръководене на организирана престъпна група за извършване на грабежи" -> "г-н ВР отново е основен свидетел на обвинението" [dir=none];
} | Bulgarian | Във връзка с второто дело, което е за ръководене на организирана престъпна група за извършване на грабежи, по което основен свидетел на обвинението отново е г‑н ВР, тя отбелязва, че г‑н Милев е задържан под стража от 24 ноември 2013 г. до 9 януари 2018 г., когато е оправдан по всички обвинения, тъй като българският съд не приема показанията на г‑н ВР за достоверни. Г‑н Милев обаче не е освободен. |
53 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"tribunal" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"tribunal" -> "El Sr. Milev fue absuelto de todos los delitos que se le imputaban, al considerar el tribunal que el testimonio del Sr. BP no era creíble.";
"El Sr. Milev fue absuelto de todos los delitos que se le imputaban, al considerar el tribunal que el testimonio del Sr. BP no era creíble." -> "En el segundo proceso, relativo a la dirección de un grupo criminal organizado para cometer robos con violencia";
"En el segundo proceso, relativo a la dirección de un grupo criminal organizado para cometer robos con violencia" -> "el principal testigo de cargo también es el Sr. BP" [dir=none];
} | Spanish | En el segundo proceso, relativo a la dirección de un grupo criminal organizado para cometer robos con violencia, en el que el principal testigo de cargo también es el Sr. BP, el órgano jurisdiccional remitente explica que el Sr. Milev estuvo privado de libertad entre el 24 de noviembre de 2013 y el 9 de enero de 2018, fecha en la que fue absuelto de todos los delitos que se le imputaban, al considerar el tribunal que el testimonio del Sr. BP no era creíble. No obstante, el Sr. Milev no fue puesto en libertad. |
54 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/CS/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bulharský soud" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bulharský soud" -> "E. Milev byl v plném rozsahu zproštěn obžaloby z důvodu, že bulharský soud nepovažoval výpověď BP za věrohodnou.";
"E. Milev byl v plném rozsahu zproštěn obžaloby z důvodu, že bulharský soud nepovažoval výpověď BP za věrohodnou." -> "Druhé řízení, které se týká vedení organizované zločinecké skupiny vytvořené s cílem spáchat loupeže";
"Druhé řízení, které se týká vedení organizované zločinecké skupiny vytvořené s cílem spáchat loupeže" -> "hlavním svědkem je opět BP" [dir=none];
} | Czech | Pokud jde o druhé řízení, které se týká vedení organizované zločinecké skupiny vytvořené s cílem spáchat loupeže a v jehož rámci je hlavním svědkem opět BP, předkládající soud uvádí, že E. Milev byl ve vazbě od 24. listopadu 2013 do 9. ledna 2018, kdy byl v plném rozsahu zproštěn obžaloby z důvodu, že bulharský soud nepovažoval výpověď BP za věrohodnou. Na svobodu však E. Milev propuštěn nebyl. |
55 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DA/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"den bulgarske ret" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"den bulgarske ret" -> "Emil Milev blev frifundet for alle anklager mod ham, fordi BP’s vidneudsagn ikke blev betragtet som troværdige.";
"Emil Milev blev frifundet for alle anklager mod ham, fordi BP’s vidneudsagn ikke blev betragtet som troværdige." -> "Den anden sag, som omhandler ledelsen af en organiseret og bevæbnet kriminel gruppe med henblik på at begå røverier";
"Den anden sag, som omhandler ledelsen af en organiseret og bevæbnet kriminel gruppe med henblik på at begå røverier" -> "BP ligeledes er anklagemyndighedens hovedvidne" [dir=none];
} | Danish | I den anden sag, som omhandler ledelsen af en organiseret og bevæbnet kriminel gruppe med henblik på at begå røverier, inden for rammerne af hvilken BP ligeledes er anklagemyndighedens hovedvidne, har den forelæggende ret forklaret, at Emil Milev var fængslet den 24. november 2013 til den 9. januar 2018, hvor han blev frifundet for alle anklager mod ham, fordi BP’s vidneudsagn ikke blev betragtet som troværdige af den bulgarske ret. Han blev dog ikke løsladt. |
56 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bulgarische Gericht" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bulgarische Gericht" -> "Er sei an letzterem Tag in allen Anklagepunkten freigesprochen worden, weil das bulgarische Gericht die Aussage des Zeugen BP für nicht glaubhaft gehalten habe.";
"Er sei an letzterem Tag in allen Anklagepunkten freigesprochen worden, weil das bulgarische Gericht die Aussage des Zeugen BP für nicht glaubhaft gehalten habe." -> "Im zweiten Verfahren, das die Anführung einer zur Begehung von Raubüberfällen gegründeten Bande betreffe";
"Im zweiten Verfahren, das die Anführung einer zur Begehung von Raubüberfällen gegründeten Bande betreffe" -> "Herr BP sei ebenfalls der Hauptbelastungszeuge" [dir=none];
} | German | Im zweiten Verfahren, das die Anführung einer zur Begehung von Raubüberfällen gegründeten Bande betreffe und in dem ebenfalls Herr BP der Hauptbelastungszeuge sei, habe sich Herr Milev vom 24. November 2013 bis zum 9. Januar 2018 in Untersuchungshaft befunden. An letzterem Tag sei er in allen Anklagepunkten freigesprochen worden, weil das bulgarische Gericht die Aussage des Zeugen BP für nicht glaubhaft gehalten habe. Er sei allerdings nicht freigelassen worden. |
57 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ET/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Bulgaaria kohus" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Bulgaaria kohus" -> "E. Milevit mõisteti kõikides talle esitatud süüdistuse punktides õigeks, kuna Bulgaaria kohus leidis, et BP ütlused ei ole usaldusväärsed.";
"E. Milevit mõisteti kõikides talle esitatud süüdistuse punktides õigeks, kuna Bulgaaria kohus leidis, et BP ütlused ei ole usaldusväärsed." -> "Teise kriminaalasja kohta, mis puudutab röövimiste toimepanemise eesmärgil tegutseva kuritegeliku ühenduse juhtimist";
"Teise kriminaalasja kohta, mis puudutab röövimiste toimepanemise eesmärgil tegutseva kuritegeliku ühenduse juhtimist" -> "BP on samuti põhitunnistaja" [dir=none];
} | Estonian | Teise kriminaalasja kohta, mis puudutab röövimiste toimepanemise eesmärgil tegutseva kuritegeliku ühenduse juhtimist ning milles BP on samuti põhitunnistaja, märgib eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus, et E. Milevit peeti vahi all 24. novembrist 2013 kuni 9. jaanuarini 2018: kuupäevani, mil ta mõisteti kõikides talle esitatud süüdistuse punktides õigeks, kuna Bulgaaria kohus leidis, et BP ütlused ei ole usaldusväärsed. E. Milevit siiski vahi alt ei vabastatud. |
58 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"βουλγαρικό δικαστήριο" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"βουλγαρικό δικαστήριο" -> "ο E. Milev απηλλάγη από όλες τις κατηγορίες εναντίον του για τον λόγο ότι οι δηλώσεις του BP δεν κρίθηκαν αξιόπιστες";
"ο E. Milev απηλλάγη από όλες τις κατηγορίες εναντίον του για τον λόγο ότι οι δηλώσεις του BP δεν κρίθηκαν αξιόπιστες" -> "Στο πλαίσιο της δεύτερης διαδικασίας, η οποία αφορά τη διεύθυνση μιας εγκληματικής οργανώσεως με σκοπό τη διάπραξη ληστειών με χρήση βίας";
"Στο πλαίσιο της δεύτερης διαδικασίας, η οποία αφορά τη διεύθυνση μιας εγκληματικής οργανώσεως με σκοπό τη διάπραξη ληστειών με χρήση βίας" -> "ο BP είναι, επίσης, ο βασικός μάρτυρας κατηγορίας" [dir=none];
} | Greek | Στο πλαίσιο της δεύτερης διαδικασίας, η οποία αφορά τη διεύθυνση μιας εγκληματικής οργανώσεως με σκοπό τη διάπραξη ληστειών με χρήση βίας και στην οποία ο BP είναι, επίσης, ο βασικός μάρτυρας κατηγορίας, το αιτούν δικαστήριο εκθέτει ότι ο E. Milev τέθηκε υπό κράτηση από τις 24 Νοεμβρίου 2013 έως τις 9 Ιανουαρίου 2018, ημερομηνία κατά την οποία απηλλάγη από όλες τις κατηγορίες εναντίον του για τον λόγο ότι οι δηλώσεις του BP δεν κρίθηκαν αξιόπιστες από το βουλγαρικό δικαστήριο. Εντούτοις, δεν αφέθηκε ελεύθερος. |
59 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"juridiction bulgare" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"juridiction bulgare" -> "M. Milev a été acquitté de toutes les charges retenues contre lui au motif que les dépositions de M. BP n’ont pas été considérées comme étant crédibles.";
"M. Milev a été acquitté de toutes les charges retenues contre lui au motif que les dépositions de M. BP n’ont pas été considérées comme étant crédibles." -> "The second case concerns the control of a criminal organisation set up to commit robberies with violence";
"The second case concerns the control of a criminal organisation set up to commit robberies with violence" -> "M. BP est également le principal témoin à charge" [dir=none];
} | French | Dans la deuxième affaire, qui concerne la direction d’un groupe criminel organisé afin de commettre des vols avec violence, dans le cadre de laquelle M. BP est également le principal témoin à charge, elle expose que M. Milev a été détenu du 24 novembre 2013 au 9 janvier 2018, date à laquelle il a été acquitté de toutes les charges retenues contre lui au motif que les dépositions de M. BP n’ont pas été considérées comme étant crédibles par la juridiction bulgare. Il n’a cependant pas été remis en liberté. |
60 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bugarski sud" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bugarski sud" -> "E. Milev je oslobođen svih optužbi zato što je bugarski sud smatrao BP‑ove iskaze nevjerodostojnima.";
"E. Milev je oslobođen svih optužbi zato što je bugarski sud smatrao BP‑ove iskaze nevjerodostojnima." -> "The second case concerns the control of a criminal organisation set up to commit robberies with violence";
"The second case concerns the control of a criminal organisation set up to commit robberies with violence" -> "BP je ponovno glavni svjedok optužbe" [dir=none];
} | Croatian | Sud koji je uputio zahtjev navodi da je u drugom predmetu, koji se odnosi na vođenje zločinačkog udruženja kojemu je cilj počinjenje razbojništvâ, u kojemu je BP također glavni svjedok optužbe, E. Milev bio u istražnom zatvoru od 24. studenoga 2013. do 9. siječnja 2018., datuma kada je oslobođen svih optužbi zato što je bugarski sud smatrao BP‑ove iskaze nevjerodostojnima. Međutim, E. Milev nije bio pušten na slobodu. |
61 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"giudice bulgaro" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"giudice bulgaro" -> "Il sig. Milev è stato assolto da tutti i capi d’accusa nei suoi confronti in quanto il giudice bulgaro non ha considerato credibile la deposizione del sig. BP.";
"Il sig. Milev è stato assolto da tutti i capi d’accusa nei suoi confronti in quanto il giudice bulgaro non ha considerato credibile la deposizione del sig. BP." -> "Nell’ambito del secondo procedimento, concernente la direzione di un’associazione a delinquere con il fine di compiere rapine";
"Nell’ambito del secondo procedimento, concernente la direzione di un’associazione a delinquere con il fine di compiere rapine" -> "il sig. BP è parimenti il principale testimone a carico" [dir=none];
} | Italian | Nell’ambito del secondo procedimento, concernente la direzione di un’associazione a delinquere con il fine di compiere rapine, in cui il sig. BP è parimenti il principale testimone a carico, il giudice del rinvio riferisce che il sig. Milev è stato trattenuto dal 24 novembre 2013 al 9 gennaio 2018, data in cui è stato assolto da tutti i capi d’accusa nei suoi confronti in quanto il giudice bulgaro non ha considerato credibile la deposizione del sig. BP. Il sig. Milev tuttavia non è stato rimesso in libertà. |
62 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/LV/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Bulgārijas tiesa" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Bulgārijas tiesa" -> "E. Milev tika attaisnots visās pret viņu celtajās apsūdzībās, pamatojoties uz to, ka Bulgārijas tiesa neuzskatīja BP liecības par ticamām.";
"E. Milev tika attaisnots visās pret viņu celtajās apsūdzībās, pamatojoties uz to, ka Bulgārijas tiesa neuzskatīja BP liecības par ticamām." -> "The second case concerns the control of a criminal organisation set up to commit robberies with violence";
"The second case concerns the control of a criminal organisation set up to commit robberies with violence" -> "BP arī ir galvenais apsūdzības liecinieks" [dir=none];
} | Latvian | Attiecībā uz otro lietu saistībā ar organizētas noziedzīgas grupas vadīšanu, lai veiktu laupīšanas, kurā BP arī ir galvenais apsūdzības liecinieks, tā paskaidro, ka E. Milev ir atradies apcietinājumā no 2013. gada 24. novembra līdz 2018. gada 9. janvārim, proti, datumam, kurā viņš tika attaisnots visās pret viņu celtajās apsūdzībās, pamatojoties uz to, ka Bulgārijas tiesa neuzskatīja BP liecības par ticamām. Tomēr viņš netika atbrīvots no apcietinājuma. |
63 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/LT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Bulgarijos teismas" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Bulgarijos teismas" -> "E. Milev buvo išteisintas dėl visų jam pareikštų kaltinimų, nes Bulgarijos teismas nusprendė, kad liudytojo BP parodymai nepatikimi.";
"E. Milev buvo išteisintas dėl visų jam pareikštų kaltinimų, nes Bulgarijos teismas nusprendė, kad liudytojo BP parodymai nepatikimi." -> "Antros baudžiamosios bylos, kurioje pagrindinis liudytojas taip pat yra BP ir kuri susijusi su vadovavimu plėšimus vykdžiusiam nusikalstamam susivienijimui";
"Antros baudžiamosios bylos, kurioje pagrindinis liudytojas taip pat yra BP ir kuri susijusi su vadovavimu plėšimus vykdžiusiam nusikalstamam susivienijimui" -> "Pagrindinis liudytojas taip pat yra BP" [dir=none];
} | Lithuanian | Dėl antros baudžiamosios bylos, kurioje pagrindinis liudytojas taip pat yra BP ir kuri susijusi su vadovavimu plėšimus vykdžiusiam nusikalstamam susivienijimui, šis teismas nurodo, kad E. Milev buvo suimtas nuo 2013 m. lapkričio 24 d. iki 2018 m. sausio 9 d., t. y. nuo momento, kai buvo išteisintas dėl visų jam pareikštų kaltinimų, nes Bulgarijos teismas nusprendė, kad liudytojo BP parodymai nepatikimi. Tačiau E. Milev nebuvo paleistas. |
64 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HU/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bolgár bíróság" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bolgár bíróság" -> "E. Milevet valamennyi vádpont alól felmentették, mivel BP tanúvallomásait a bolgár bíróság nem tekintette hitelesnek.";
"E. Milevet valamennyi vádpont alól felmentették, mivel BP tanúvallomásait a bolgár bíróság nem tekintette hitelesnek." -> "A második ügy a rablások elkövetése céljából létrehozott bűnszervezet irányítására vonatkozik.";
"A második ügy a rablások elkövetése céljából létrehozott bűnszervezet irányítására vonatkozik." -> "BP az elsődleges terhelő tanú" [dir=none];
} | Hungarian | Ami a második – rablások elkövetése céljából létrehozott bűnszervezet irányítására vonatkozó – ügyet illeti, amelyben szintén BP az elsődleges terhelő tanú, a kérdést előterjesztő bíróság jelzi, hogy E. Milevet 2013. november 24‑től 2018. január 9‑ig fogva tartották, amikor is valamennyi vádpont alól felmentették, mivel BP tanúvallomásait a bolgár bíróság nem tekintette hitelesnek. E. Milevet azonban nem engedték szabadon. |
65 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/MT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"qorti Bulgara" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"qorti Bulgara" -> "E. Milev ġie arrestat mill-24 ta’ Novembru 2013 sad-9 ta’ Jannar 2018, data li fiha huwa nħeles mill-akkużi kollha miġjuba kontrih minħabba li x-xhieda ta’ BP ma kinitx meqjusa bħala kredibbli mill-qorti Bulgara.";
"E. Milev ġie arrestat mill-24 ta’ Novembru 2013 sad-9 ta’ Jannar 2018, data li fiha huwa nħeles mill-akkużi kollha miġjuba kontrih minħabba li x-xhieda ta’ BP ma kinitx meqjusa bħala kredibbli mill-qorti Bulgara." -> "Fit-tieni kawża, li tikkonċerna t-tmexxija ta’ grupp kriminali organizzat sabiex jitwettaq is-serq bi vjolenza";
"Fit-tieni kawża, li tikkonċerna t-tmexxija ta’ grupp kriminali organizzat sabiex jitwettaq is-serq bi vjolenza" -> "BP huwa wkoll ix-xhud prinċipali" [dir=none];
} | Maltese | Fit-tieni kawża, li tikkonċerna t-tmexxija ta’ grupp kriminali organizzat sabiex jitwettaq is-serq bi vjolenza, li fil-kuntest tagħha BP huwa wkoll ix-xhud prinċipali, din tesponi li E. Milev ġie arrestat mill-24 ta’ Novembru 2013 sad-9 ta’ Jannar 2018, data li fiha huwa nħeles mill-akkużi kollha miġjuba kontrih minħabba li x-xhieda ta’ BP ma kinitx meqjusa bħala kredibbli mill-qorti Bulgara. Madankollu, dan ma kienx inħeles. |
66 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/NL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Bulgaarse rechter" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Bulgaarse rechter" -> "Milev was van alle aanklachten tegen hem vrijgesproken omdat de Bulgaarse rechter de verklaringen van BP niet geloofwaardig achtte.";
"Milev was van alle aanklachten tegen hem vrijgesproken omdat de Bulgaarse rechter de verklaringen van BP niet geloofwaardig achtte." -> "In de tweede zaak, waarin het gaat over de leiding van een georganiseerde criminele groep voor het plegen van diefstallen met geweld";
"In de tweede zaak, waarin het gaat over de leiding van een georganiseerde criminele groep voor het plegen van diefstallen met geweld" -> "BP eveneens de belangrijkste getuige à charge" [dir=none];
} | Dutch | In de tweede zaak, waarin het gaat over de leiding van een georganiseerde criminele groep voor het plegen van diefstallen met geweld en waarbij BP eveneens de belangrijkste getuige à charge is, zet de verwijzende rechter uiteen dat Milev was gedetineerd van 24 november 2013 tot 9 januari 2018, de dag waarop hij van alle aanklachten tegen hem is vrijgesproken omdat de Bulgaarse rechter de verklaringen van BP niet geloofwaardig achtte. Hij is echter niet vrijgelaten. |
67 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"sąd bułgarski" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"sąd bułgarski" -> "E. Milev został uniewinniony ze wszystkich stawianych mu zarzutów, ponieważ zeznania BP nie zostały przez sąd bułgarski uznane za wiarygodne.";
"E. Milev został uniewinniony ze wszystkich stawianych mu zarzutów, ponieważ zeznania BP nie zostały przez sąd bułgarski uznane za wiarygodne." -> "The second case concerns the control of a criminal organisation set up to commit robberies with violence";
"The second case concerns the control of a criminal organisation set up to commit robberies with violence" -> "BP jest również głównym świadkiem oskarżenia" [dir=none];
} | Polish | W drugiej sprawie, dotyczącej kierowania zorganizowaną grupą przestępczą w celu dokonywania rozbojów, w której BP jest również głównym świadkiem oskarżenia, sąd odsyłający wyjaśnia, że E. Milev był tymczasowo aresztowany w okresie od 24 listopada 2013 r. do 9 stycznia 2018 r., kiedy to został uniewinniony ze wszystkich stawianych mu zarzutów, ponieważ zeznania BP nie zostały przez sąd bułgarski uznane za wiarygodne. Nie został on jednak zwolniony. |
68 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"órgão jurisdicional búlgaro" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"órgão jurisdicional búlgaro" -> "E. Milev foi absolvido de todas as acusações contra ele deduzidas, pelo facto de as declarações de BP não terem sido consideradas credíveis.";
"E. Milev foi absolvido de todas as acusações contra ele deduzidas, pelo facto de as declarações de BP não terem sido consideradas credíveis." -> "No segundo processo, que se refere à direção de uma associação criminosa, constituída com o objetivo de cometer roubos";
"No segundo processo, que se refere à direção de uma associação criminosa, constituída com o objetivo de cometer roubos" -> "BP é também a principal testemunha de acusação" [dir=none];
} | Portuguese | No segundo processo, que se refere à direção de uma associação criminosa, constituída com o objetivo de cometer roubos, no âmbito da qual BP é também a principal testemunha de acusação, informa que E. Milev esteve preso de 24 de novembro de 2013 a 9 de janeiro de 2018, data em que foi absolvido de todas as acusações contra ele deduzidas, pelo facto de as declarações de BP não terem sido consideradas credíveis pelo órgão jurisdicional búlgaro. No entanto, não foi posto em liberdade. |
69 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/RO/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"instanța bulgară" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"instanța bulgară" -> "Domnul Milev a fost achitat de toate învinuirile reținute împotriva sa pentru motivul că depozițiile domnului BP nu au fost considerate credibile.";
"Domnul Milev a fost achitat de toate învinuirile reținute împotriva sa pentru motivul că depozițiile domnului BP nu au fost considerate credibile." -> "În cea de a doua cauză, care privește conducerea unui grup infracțional organizat în scopul săvârșirii unor tâlhării";
"În cea de a doua cauză, care privește conducerea unui grup infracțional organizat în scopul săvârșirii unor tâlhării" -> "domnul BP este de asemenea principalul martor al acuzării" [dir=none];
} | Romanian | În cea de a doua cauză, care privește conducerea unui grup infracțional organizat în scopul săvârșirii unor tâlhării, în cadrul căreia domnul BP este de asemenea principalul martor al acuzării, aceasta arată că domnul Milev a fost deținut de la 24 noiembrie 2013 până la 9 ianuarie 2018, dată la care a fost achitat de toate învinuirile reținute împotriva sa pentru motivul că depozițiile domnului BP nu au fost considerate credibile de instanța bulgară. Cu toate acestea, el nu a fost repus în libertate. |
70 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SK/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bulharským súdom" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bulharským súdom" -> "pán Milev bol oslobodený spod všetkých bodov obžaloby z dôvodu, že výpovede pána BP neboli bulharským súdom považované za dôveryhodné.";
"pán Milev bol oslobodený spod všetkých bodov obžaloby z dôvodu, že výpovede pána BP neboli bulharským súdom považované za dôveryhodné." -> "The second case concerns the control of a criminal organisation set up to commit robberies with violence";
"The second case concerns the control of a criminal organisation set up to commit robberies with violence" -> "pán BP je opäť hlavným svedkom obžaloby" [dir=none];
} | Slovak | V druhom prípade, ktorý sa týka vedenia organizovanej zločineckej skupiny s cieľom páchať lúpeže, v rámci ktorého je pán BP tiež hlavným svedkom, vnútroštátny súd uvádza, že pán Milev bol vo väzbe od 24. novembra 2013 do 9. januára 2018, do dňa, kedy bol oslobodený spod všetkých bodov obžaloby z dôvodu, že výpovede pána BP neboli bulharským súdom považované za dôveryhodné. Nebol však prepustený z väzby. |
71 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bolgarsko sodišče" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bolgarsko sodišče" -> "E. Milev je bil oproščen vseh obtožb, ker bolgarsko sodišče izpovedb osebe BP ni štelo za verodostojne.";
"E. Milev je bil oproščen vseh obtožb, ker bolgarsko sodišče izpovedb osebe BP ni štelo za verodostojne." -> "V drugem postopku, ki se nanaša na vodenje hudodelske združbe, katere cilj je izvajanje ropov";
"V drugem postopku, ki se nanaša na vodenje hudodelske združbe, katere cilj je izvajanje ropov" -> "oseba BP prav tako obremenilna priča" [dir=none];
} | Slovenian | V drugem postopku, ki se nanaša na vodenje hudodelske združbe, katere cilj je izvajanje ropov in v okviru katere je oseba BP prav tako obremenilna priča, predložitveno sodišče navaja, da je bil E. Milev pridržan od 24. novembra 2013 do 9. januarja 2018, ko je bil oproščen vseh obtožb, ker bolgarsko sodišče izpovedb osebe BP ni štelo za verodostojne. Ni pa bil izpuščen na prostost. |
72 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FI/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"bulgarialainen tuomioistuin" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"bulgarialainen tuomioistuin" -> "Milev vapautettiin kaikista häntä vastaan nostetuista syytteistä sillä perusteella, ettei bulgarialainen tuomioistuin pitänyt BP:n todistajanlausuntoja uskottavina.";
"Milev vapautettiin kaikista häntä vastaan nostetuista syytteistä sillä perusteella, ettei bulgarialainen tuomioistuin pitänyt BP:n todistajanlausuntoja uskottavina." -> "Toisessa asiassa, joka koskee järjestäytyneen rikollisryhmän johtamista ryöstöjen suorittamista varten";
"Toisessa asiassa, joka koskee järjestäytyneen rikollisryhmän johtamista ryöstöjen suorittamista varten" -> "BP on myös Mileviä vastaan todistava päätodistaja" [dir=none];
} | Finnish | Ennakkoratkaisua pyytänyt tuomioistuin esittää, että toisessa asiassa, joka koskee järjestäytyneen rikollisryhmän johtamista ryöstöjen suorittamista varten ja jonka yhteydessä BP on myös Mileviä vastaan todistava päätodistaja, Milev on ollut vangittuna 24.11.2013–9.1.2018, jolloin hänet vapautettiin kaikista häntä vastaan nostetuista syytteistä sillä perusteella, ettei bulgarialainen tuomioistuin pitänyt BP:n todistajanlausuntoja uskottavina. Mileviä ei kuitenkaan päästetty vapaaksi. |
73 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018.
Criminal proceedings against Emil Milev.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention. | Case C-310/18 PPU. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SV/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0310 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"den bulgariska domstolen" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"den bulgariska domstolen" -> "Emil Milev friades från alla anklagelser på grund av att den bulgariska domstolen bedömde att BP:s uppgifter inte var tillförlitliga.";
"Emil Milev friades från alla anklagelser på grund av att den bulgariska domstolen bedömde att BP:s uppgifter inte var tillförlitliga." -> "Angående det andra målet, som avser ledningen av en kriminell grupp som bildats i syfte att begå rån";
"Angående det andra målet, som avser ledningen av en kriminell grupp som bildats i syfte att begå rån" -> "BP också är huvudvittnet" [dir=none];
} | Swedish | Angående det andra målet, som avser ledningen av en kriminell grupp som bildats i syfte att begå rån, i vilket BP också är huvudvittnet, har den hänskjutande domstolen angett att Emil Milev var frihetsberövad från den 24 november 2013 till den 9 januari 2018, då han friades från alla anklagelser på grund av att den bulgariska domstolen bedömde att BP:s uppgifter inte var tillförlitliga. Han släpptes emellertid inte på fri fot. |
74 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"The municipality of Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Article 4 of Directive 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"The municipality of Montelanico" -> "Notice 29/09/2017";
"Notice 29/09/2017" -> "Published an open tender procedure with a contract value exceeding the threshold." [dir=none];
"Published an open tender procedure with a contract value exceeding the threshold." -> "Article 4 of Directive 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Six tenderers" -> "The municipality of Montelanico";
} | English | By a notice of 29 September 2017, the municipality of Montelanico published an open tender procedure with a contract value exceeding the threshold in Article 4 of Directive 2014/24. That notice did not expressly refer to the obligation on operators, under Article 95(10) of the Code of Public Contracts, to list labour costs in their financial tenders.
Six tenderers, which included Gea Srl and Lavorgna, submitted tenders. |
75 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/BG/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"община Монтеланико Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"член 4 от Директива 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"община Монтеланико Montelanico" -> "обявление 29/09/2017";
"обявление 29/09/2017" -> "публикува обявление за открита процедура за възлагане на обществена поръчка на стойност над прага." [dir=none];
"публикува обявление за открита процедура за възлагане на обществена поръчка на стойност над прага." -> "член 4 от Директива 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Оферти подават шест оференти" -> "община Монтеланико Montelanico";
} | Bulgarian | На 29 септември 2017 г. община Монтеланико публикува обявление за открита процедура за възлагане на обществена поръчка на стойност над прага по член 4 от Директива 2014/24. В обявлението не се припомня изрично задължението на операторите за посочване в икономическите оферти на разходите за труд, предвидено в член 95, параграф 10 от Кодекса за обществените поръчки.
Оферти подават шест оференти, сред които Gea Srl и Lavorgna. |
76 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"el Ayuntamiento de Montelanico Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"artículo 4 de la Directiva 2014/24 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"el Ayuntamiento de Montelanico Montelanico" -> "anuncio de 29 de septiembre de 2017 29/09/2017";
"anuncio de 29 de septiembre de 2017 29/09/2017" -> "Mediante anuncio de 29 de septiembre de 2017, el Ayuntamiento de Montelanico inició un procedimiento de licitación abierto cuyo valor de mercado superaba el umbral establecido en el artículo 4 de la Directiva 2014/24.." [dir=none];
"Mediante anuncio de 29 de septiembre de 2017, el Ayuntamiento de Montelanico inició un procedimiento de licitación abierto cuyo valor de mercado superaba el umbral establecido en el artículo 4 de la Directiva 2014/24.." -> "artículo 4 de la Directiva 2014/24 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Seis licitadores" -> "el Ayuntamiento de Montelanico Montelanico";
} | Spanish | Mediante anuncio de 29 de septiembre de 2017, el Ayuntamiento de Montelanico inició un procedimiento de licitación abierto cuyo valor de mercado superaba el umbral establecido en el artículo 4 de la Directiva 2014/24. Dicho anuncio no recordaba expresamente la obligación que tienen los operadores de indicar en su oferta económica los costes de mano de obra, establecida en el artículo 95, apartado 10, del Código de Contratación Pública.
Seis licitadores, entre los que figuraban Gea Srl y Lavorgna, presentaron ofertas. |
77 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/CS/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Obec Montelanico Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"článku 4 směrnice 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"Obec Montelanico Montelanico" -> "oznámením ze dne 29. září 2017 29/09/2017";
"oznámením ze dne 29. září 2017 29/09/2017" -> "Obec Montelanico oznámením ze dne 29. září 2017 zahájila otevřené zadávací řízení, ve kterém hodnota zakázky překračovala prahovou hodnotu." [dir=none];
"Obec Montelanico oznámením ze dne 29. září 2017 zahájila otevřené zadávací řízení, ve kterém hodnota zakázky překračovala prahovou hodnotu." -> "článku 4 směrnice 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Nabídku předložilo šest uchazečů" -> "Obec Montelanico Montelanico";
} | Czech | Obec Montelanico oznámením ze dne 29. září 2017 zahájila otevřené zadávací řízení, ve kterém hodnota zakázky překračovala prahovou hodnotu stanovenou v článku 4 směrnice 2014/24. Toto oznámení výslovně nepřipomínalo povinnost hospodářských subjektů uvést v jejich ekonomické nabídce náklady práce, stanovenou v čl. 95 odst. 10 zákona o veřejných zakázkách.
Nabídku předložilo šest uchazečů, včetně společností Gea Srl a Lavorgna. |
78 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DA/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Montelanico kommune Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"artikel 4 i direktiv 2014/24 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"Montelanico kommune Montelanico" -> "bekendtgørelse 29/09/2017";
"bekendtgørelse 29/09/2017" -> "iværksatte Montelanico kommune et offentligt udbud, hvor værdien af kontrakten oversteg den tærskel." [dir=none];
"iværksatte Montelanico kommune et offentligt udbud, hvor værdien af kontrakten oversteg den tærskel." -> "artikel 4 i direktiv 2014/24 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Seks tilbudsgivere" -> "Montelanico kommune Montelanico";
} | Danish | Ved bekendtgørelse af 29. september 2017 iværksatte Montelanico kommune et offentligt udbud, hvor værdien af kontrakten oversteg den tærskel, som er fastsat i artikel 4 i direktiv 2014/24. I bekendtgørelsen var aktørernes forpligtelse til i deres økonomiske bud at angive arbejdskraftomkostningerne, jf. artikel 95, stk. 10, i lov om offentlige kontrakter, ikke udtrykkelig nævnt.
Seks tilbudsgivere, herunder Gea Srl og Lavorgna, afgav et bud. |
79 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Montelanico Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Art. 4 der Richtlinie 2014/24 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"Montelanico Montelanico" -> "Bekanntmachung 29/09/2017";
"Bekanntmachung 29/09/2017" -> "Mit Bekanntmachung vom 29. September 2017 leitete die Gemeinde Montelanico ein offenes Verfahren zur Vergabe eines Auftrags ein, dessen Volumen über den in Art. 4 der Richtlinie 2014/24 vorgesehenen Schwellenwert hinausging.." [dir=none];
"Mit Bekanntmachung vom 29. September 2017 leitete die Gemeinde Montelanico ein offenes Verfahren zur Vergabe eines Auftrags ein, dessen Volumen über den in Art. 4 der Richtlinie 2014/24 vorgesehenen Schwellenwert hinausging.." -> "Art. 4 der Richtlinie 2014/24 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Sechs Bieter" -> "Montelanico Montelanico";
} | German | Mit Bekanntmachung vom 29. September 2017 leitete die Gemeinde Montelanico ein offenes Verfahren zur Vergabe eines Auftrags ein, dessen Volumen über den in Art. 4 der Richtlinie 2014/24 vorgesehenen Schwellenwert hinausging. In dieser Bekanntmachung wurde auf die in Art. 95 Abs. 10 des Vergabegesetzbuchs vorgesehene Pflicht der Teilnehmer, in ihrem wirtschaftlichen Angebot die Arbeitskosten anzugeben, nicht ausdrücklich hingewiesen.
Sechs Bieter, darunter die Gea Srl und Lavorgna, gaben ein Angebot ab. |
80 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ET/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Montelanico omavalitsusüksus Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"direktiivi 2014/24 artiklis 4 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"Montelanico omavalitsusüksus Montelanico" -> "hanketeatega 29/09/2017";
"hanketeatega 29/09/2017" -> "Algatas 29. septembri 2017. aasta hanketeatega avatud riigihankemenetluse lepingu sõlmimiseks, mille maksumus ületas direktiivi 2014/24 artiklis 4 sätestatud piirmäära.." [dir=none];
"Algatas 29. septembri 2017. aasta hanketeatega avatud riigihankemenetluse lepingu sõlmimiseks, mille maksumus ületas direktiivi 2014/24 artiklis 4 sätestatud piirmäära.." -> "direktiivi 2014/24 artiklis 4 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Pakkumused esitasid kuus pakkujat" -> "Montelanico omavalitsusüksus Montelanico";
} | Estonian | Montelanico omavalitsusüksus algatas 29. septembri 2017. aasta hanketeatega avatud riigihankemenetluse lepingu sõlmimiseks, mille maksumus ületas direktiivi 2014/24 artiklis 4 sätestatud piirmäära. Selles hanketeates ei olnud otsesõnu korratud ettevõtjale kohustust näidata hinnapakkumuses ära tööjõukulud, nagu on ette nähtud riigihankeseadustiku artikli 95 lõikes 10.
Pakkumused esitasid kuus pakkujat, kelle hulgas olid Gea Srl ja Lavorgna. |
81 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Δήμος Montelanico Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"άρθρο 4 της οδηγίας 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"Δήμος Montelanico Montelanico" -> "προκήρυξη 29/09/2017";
"προκήρυξη 29/09/2017" -> "Με προκήρυξη της 29ης Σεπτεμβρίου 2017, ο Δήμος Montelanico κίνησε διαδικασία ανοικτού διαγωνισμού του οποίου η αξία της συμβάσεως υπερέβαινε το προβλεπόμενο στο άρθρο 4 της οδηγίας 2014/24 κατώτατο όριο.." [dir=none];
"Με προκήρυξη της 29ης Σεπτεμβρίου 2017, ο Δήμος Montelanico κίνησε διαδικασία ανοικτού διαγωνισμού του οποίου η αξία της συμβάσεως υπερέβαινε το προβλεπόμενο στο άρθρο 4 της οδηγίας 2014/24 κατώτατο όριο.." -> "άρθρο 4 της οδηγίας 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Έξι διαγωνιζόμενοι" -> "Δήμος Montelanico Montelanico";
} | Greek | Με προκήρυξη της 29ης Σεπτεμβρίου 2017, ο Δήμος Montelanico κίνησε διαδικασία ανοικτού διαγωνισμού του οποίου η αξία της συμβάσεως υπερέβαινε το προβλεπόμενο στο άρθρο 4 της οδηγίας 2014/24 κατώτατο όριο. Η εν λόγω προκήρυξη δεν υπενθύμιζε ρητώς την υποχρέωση των οικονομικών φορέων να αναγράφουν στην οικονομική προσφορά τους το κόστος εργασίας, που προβλέπεται στο άρθρο 95, παράγραφος 10, του κώδικα δημοσίων συμβάσεων.
Έξι διαγωνιζόμενοι, μεταξύ των οποίων η Gea Srl και η Lavorgna, υπέβαλαν προσφορά. |
82 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"la commune de Montelanico Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"l’article 4 de la directive 2014/24 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"la commune de Montelanico Montelanico" -> "avis du 29 septembre 2017 29/09/2017";
"avis du 29 septembre 2017 29/09/2017" -> "a lancé une procédure ouverte d’appel d’offres dont la valeur du marché dépassait le seuil." [dir=none];
"a lancé une procédure ouverte d’appel d’offres dont la valeur du marché dépassait le seuil." -> "l’article 4 de la directive 2014/24 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Six soumissionnaires" -> "la commune de Montelanico Montelanico";
} | French | Par un avis du 29 septembre 2017, la commune de Montelanico a lancé une procédure ouverte d’appel d’offres dont la valeur du marché dépassait le seuil prévu à l’article 4 de la directive 2014/24. Cet avis ne rappelait pas expressément l’obligation faite aux opérateurs d’indiquer dans leur offre économique les coûts de main-d’œuvre, prévue à l’article 95, paragraphe 10, du code des marchés publics.
Six soumissionnaires, au nombre desquels figuraient Gea Srl et Lavorgna, ont présenté une offre. |
83 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Općina Montelanico Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"člankom 4. Direktive 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"Općina Montelanico Montelanico" -> "obaviješću o nadmetanju od 29. rujna 2017. 29/09/2017";
"obaviješću o nadmetanju od 29. rujna 2017. 29/09/2017" -> "pokrenula je otvoreni postupak javne nabave čija je vrijednost ugovora prelazila prag." [dir=none];
"pokrenula je otvoreni postupak javne nabave čija je vrijednost ugovora prelazila prag." -> "člankom 4. Direktive 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Šest ponuditelja" -> "Općina Montelanico Montelanico";
} | Croatian | Općina Montelanico obaviješću o nadmetanju od 29. rujna 2017. pokrenula je otvoreni postupak javne nabave čija je vrijednost ugovora prelazila prag propisan člankom 4. Direktive 2014/24. U obavijesti se nije izričito navodila obveza gospodarskih subjekata da u svojoj ekonomskoj ponudi navedu troškove radne snage, koja je propisana člankom 95. stavkom 10. Zakonika o javnoj nabavi.
Šest ponuditelja, među kojima i društva Gea Srl i Lavorgna, podnijelo je svoje ponude. |
84 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"il Comune di Montelanico Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"articolo 4 della direttiva 2014/24 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"il Comune di Montelanico Montelanico" -> "provvedimento del 29 settembre 2017 29/09/2017";
"provvedimento del 29 settembre 2017 29/09/2017" -> "Ha bandito una procedura d’appalto aperta il cui valore di mercato superava la soglia." [dir=none];
"Ha bandito una procedura d’appalto aperta il cui valore di mercato superava la soglia." -> "articolo 4 della direttiva 2014/24 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Sei offerenti" -> "il Comune di Montelanico Montelanico";
} | Italian | Con provvedimento del 29 settembre 2017, il Comune di Montelanico ha bandito una procedura d’appalto aperta il cui valore di mercato superava la soglia prevista all’articolo 4 della direttiva 2014/24. Il provvedimento in questione non richiamava espressamente l’obbligo incombente agli operatori di indicare nella loro offerta economica i costi della manodopera, prescritto all’articolo 95, comma 10, del codice dei contratti pubblici.
Sei offerenti, tra i quali figuravano la Gea Srl e la Lavorgna, hanno presentato un’offerta. |
85 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/LV/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Montelaniko pašvaldība Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Direktīvas 2014/24 4. pantā 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"Montelaniko pašvaldība Montelanico" -> "2017. gada 29. septembra paziņojumu 29/09/2017";
"2017. gada 29. septembra paziņojumu 29/09/2017" -> "Ar 2017. gada 29. septembra paziņojumu Montelaniko pašvaldība uzsāka atklātu iepirkuma procedūru, kuras iepirkuma vērtība pārsniedza Direktīvas 2014/24 4. pantā paredzēto robežvērtību.." [dir=none];
"Ar 2017. gada 29. septembra paziņojumu Montelaniko pašvaldība uzsāka atklātu iepirkuma procedūru, kuras iepirkuma vērtība pārsniedza Direktīvas 2014/24 4. pantā paredzēto robežvērtību.." -> "Direktīvas 2014/24 4. pantā 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Seši pretendenti" -> "Montelaniko pašvaldība Montelanico";
} | Latvian | Ar 2017. gada 29. septembra paziņojumu Montelaniko pašvaldība uzsāka atklātu iepirkuma procedūru, kuras iepirkuma vērtība pārsniedza Direktīvas 2014/24 4. pantā paredzēto robežvērtību. Šajā paziņojumā nebija tieši atgādināts Publisko līgumu kodeksa 95. panta 10. punktā paredzētais pienākums komersantiem saimnieciskajā piedāvājumā norādīt darbaspēka izmaksas.
Seši pretendenti, tostarp Gea Srl un Lavorgna, iesniedza piedāvājumus. |
86 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/LT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Montelanico savivaldybė Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Direktyvos 2014/24 4 straipsnyje 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"Montelanico savivaldybė Montelanico" -> "skelbimu 29/09/2017";
"skelbimu 29/09/2017" -> "Skelbimu Montelanico savivaldybė pradėjo atviro konkurso procedūrą; pirkimo vertė viršijo Direktyvos 2014/24 4 straipsnyje numatytą vertės ribą.." [dir=none];
"Skelbimu Montelanico savivaldybė pradėjo atviro konkurso procedūrą; pirkimo vertė viršijo Direktyvos 2014/24 4 straipsnyje numatytą vertės ribą.." -> "Direktyvos 2014/24 4 straipsnyje 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Pasiūlymus pateikė šeši dalyviai" -> "Montelanico savivaldybė Montelanico";
} | Lithuanian | 2017 m. rugsėjo 29 d. skelbimu Montelanico savivaldybė pradėjo atviro konkurso procedūrą; pirkimo vertė viršijo Direktyvos 2014/24 4 straipsnyje numatytą vertės ribą. Šiame skelbime aiškiai nebuvo priminta Viešųjų pirkimų kodekso 95 straipsnio 10 dalyje numatyta veiklos vykdytojų pareiga savo finansiniame pasiūlyme nurodyti darbo sąnaudas.
Pasiūlymus pateikė šeši dalyviai, tarp kurių buvo Gea Srl ir Lavorgna. |
87 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HU/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"Montelanico önkormányzata Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"2014/24 irányelv 4. cikké 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"Montelanico önkormányzata Montelanico" -> "hirdetmény 29/09/2017";
"hirdetmény 29/09/2017" -> "Nyílt közbeszerzési eljárást indított, amely keretében a szerződés értéke meghaladta a 2014/24 irányelv 4. cikkében előírt értékhatárt.." [dir=none];
"Nyílt közbeszerzési eljárást indított, amely keretében a szerződés értéke meghaladta a 2014/24 irányelv 4. cikkében előírt értékhatárt.." -> "2014/24 irányelv 4. cikké 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Hat ajánlattevő" -> "Montelanico önkormányzata Montelanico";
} | Hungarian | A 2017. szeptember 29‑én közzétett hirdetményben Montelanico önkormányzata nyílt közbeszerzési eljárást indított, amely keretében a szerződés értéke meghaladta a 2014/24 irányelv 4. cikkében előírt értékhatárt. E hirdetmény nem hivatkozott kifejezetten a gazdasági szereplőknek a közbeszerzési kódex 95. cikkének (10) bekezdésében előírt azon kötelezettségére, hogy a gazdasági ajánlatukban fel kell tüntetniük a munkaerőköltségeket.
Hat ajánlattevő, köztük a Gea Srl és a Lavorgna, nyújtott be ajánlatot. |
88 | Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 May 2019.
Lavorgna Srl v Comune di Montelanico and Others.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Labour costs — Automatic exclusion of tenderer where those costs were not listed separately in the tender — Principle of proportionality. | Case C-309/18. | https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/MT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0309 | 2019 | digraph {
rankdir=LR;
node [shape=box];
"il-komun ta’ Montelanico Montelanico" [shape=doubleoctagon];
"Artikolu 4 tad-Direttiva 2014/24" [shape=trapezium];
"il-komun ta’ Montelanico Montelanico" -> "avviż 29/09/2017";
"avviż 29/09/2017" -> "Published an open tender procedure with a contract value exceeding the threshold." [dir=none];
"Published an open tender procedure with a contract value exceeding the threshold." -> "Artikolu 4 tad-Direttiva 2014/24" [dir=none];
"Sitt offerenti" -> "il-komun ta’ Montelanico Montelanico";
} | Maltese | Permezz ta’ avviż tad-29 ta’ Settembru 2017, il-komun ta’ Montelanico fetaħ proċedura ta’ sejħa għal offerti li l-valur tal-kuntratt tagħha qabeż il-limitu minimu previst fl-Artikolu 4 tad-Direttiva 2014/24. Dan l-avviż ma fakkarx espressament l-obbligu impost fuq l-operaturi li fl-offerta ekonomika tagħhom jindikaw l-ispejjeż ta’ manodopera, previst fl-Artikolu 95(10) tal-Kodiċi tal-Kuntratti Pubbliċi.
Sitt offerenti, li kienu jinkludu Gea Srl u Lavorgna, ippreżentaw offerta. |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
YAML Metadata
Warning:
empty or missing yaml metadata in repo card
(https://huggingface.co/docs/hub/datasets-cards)
LegalViz
LegalViz is a novel dataset of legal relationship visualization task based on legal texts taken from EUR-LEX that store EU official legal documents.
Paper
LegalViz: Legal Text Visualization by Text To Diagram Generation.
This paper has accepted at NAACL2025. Please visit paper from the link.
Dataset License
LegalViz dataset annotations are distributed under CC BY-SA 4.0. When you create any derivations, e.g., datasets, papers, etc, from JDocQA, please cite our paper accordingly. If your derivations are web-based projects, please cite our paper and include the link to this github page.
Download
Annotations can be downloaded from Github as well.
Annotation descriptions
Annotated files
dataset/legalviz_train.jsonl
dataset/legalviz_valid.jsonl
dataset/legalviz_test.jsonl
Annotation entries
"ID": Annotation unique ID.
"case_name": The name of the cases.
"case_number": Case ID numbers taken from EUR-LEX.
"document_url": Document URLs where the annotated texts taken from.
"year": The year cases have published.
"graphviz": DOT language Graphviz codes that visualize legal relationships.
"language": EU official languages that judgment cases written by.
"legal_text": Legal texts taken from EUR-LEX.
Citation
@inproceedings{onami2025naacl,
title={LegalViz: Legal Text Visualization by Text To Diagram Generation},
author={Onami, Eri and Miyanishi, Taiki and Maeda, Koki and Kurita, Shuhei},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)},
year={2025}
}
- Downloads last month
- 42