III. CASE-LAW
III.1. Court of Justice of the European Union
Judgement of the Court, of 22 June 2017, Case C‑126/16
Reference for a preliminary ruling. Directive 2001/23/EC. Articles 3 to 5. Transfers of undertakings. Safeguarding of employees’ rights. Exceptions. Insolvency proceedings. ‘Pre-pack’. Survival of an undertaking.
Summary:
“Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, and in particular Article 5(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the protection of workers guaranteed by Articles 3 and 4 of that directive applies in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the transfer of an undertaking takes place following a declaration of insolvency and in the context of a ‘pre-pack’ where that ‘pre-pack’ is prepared before the declaration of insolvency and put into effect immediately after that declaration, and, in particular, a court-appointed prospective insolvency administrator investigates the possibilities for continuation of the activities of that undertaking by a third party and prepares for acts which must be carried out shortly after the insolvency to enable such continuation and, moreover, it is irrelevant in that regard that the ‘pre-pack’ is also aimed at maximising the proceeds of the transfer for all the creditors of the undertaking in question.”
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0126&qid=1498639323370&from=PT
Judgement of the Court, of 15 June 2017, Case C‑249/16
Reference for a preliminary ruling. Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. Article 7(1). Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and of a ‘contract for the provision of services’. Recourse claim between jointly and severally liable debtors under a credit agreement. Determination of the place of performance of the credit agreement.
Summary:
“Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a recourse claim between jointly and severally liable debtors under a credit agreement constitutes a ‘matter relating to a contract’, as referred to in that provision.
The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a credit agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, between a credit institution and two jointly and severally liable debtors, must be classified as a ‘contract for the provision of services’ for the purposes of that provision.
The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a credit institution has granted a loan to two jointly and severally liable debtors, the ‘place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided’, within the meaning of that provision, is, unless otherwise agreed, the place where that institution has its registered office, and this also applies with a view to determining the territorial jurisdiction of the court called upon to hear and determine an action for recourse between those joint debtors.”
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0249&qid=1498639323370&from=PT
Judgement of the Court of 14 June, Case nº C‑38/16:
Reference for a preliminary ruling. Value added tax (VAT). Repayment of overpaid VAT. Right to deduct VAT. Procedures. Principles of equal treatment and fiscal neutrality. Principle of effectiveness. National legislation introducing a limitation period.
Summary:
“The principles of fiscal neutrality, equal treatment and effectiveness do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the context of the reduction of the limitation period, on the one hand, for claims for overpaid value added tax and, on the other hand, for claims for deduction of input value added tax, provides different transitional periods, with the result that claims relating to two accounting periods of three months are subject to different limitation periods depending on whether they concern the repayment of overpaid value added tax or the deduction of input value added tax.”
Judgement of the Court of 8 June, Case nº C‑580/15:
Reference for a preliminary ruling. Article 56 TFEU. Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. Tax legislation. Income tax. Tax exemption reserved to interest payments by banks complying with certain statutory conditions. Indirect discrimination. Banks established in Belgium and banks established in another Member State.
Summary:
“Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a national tax exemption system, to the extent that that system, although applicable without distinction to income from savings deposits held with banking service providers established in Belgium or in another Member State of the European Economic Area, imposes conditions for access to the Belgian banking market on service providers established in other Member States, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.”
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62015CJ0580
III.2. Constitutional Court
Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 292/2017 of June 8, Case 893/2016:
Establishes that the provision in article 7.º, no. 5 of the Law no. 15/2001, of June 5 is unconstitutional, as doesn’t comply with the Constitution.
http://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/acordaos/20170292.html
Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 293/2017 of June 8, Case 908/2016:
Establishes that the provision in article 26.º, no. 4, paragraph a) of the Law no. 6/2006, of February 27, amended by the Law no. 31/2012, of August 14 is unconstitutional, as doesn’t comply with the Constitution.
http://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/acordaos/20170293.html
III.3. Courts of Justice
Judgment of Porto’ Court of Appeal of 5 June 2017, Case No. 1108/14.0T2OVR-A.P1: Promissory Notes. Subscriber. Private limited company. Company commitment. On behalf of the manager. Abusive filling.
Judgment of Lisbon’s Court of Appeal of 8 June 2017, Case No. 152-13.0TCFUN.L1–2: Bank Deposit Agreement. Shares. Financial Intermediaries.
III.4. Administrative and Tax Courts
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of June 7, Case n.º 0723/15: Tax liquidation act. Officious liquidation. VAT. Lack of reasoning.
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of June 7, Case n.º 0279/17: Interest on overdue payments.
Partilhar este artigo