mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
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. (2019)
Language: 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).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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"];

    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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].

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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"];

    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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].

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):

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"];

    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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].

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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"];

    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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].

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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"];

    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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].

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):

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"];

    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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"];

    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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"];

    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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"];

    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):

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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):

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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}
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. (2019)
Language: 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.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
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];
    
    
}