III.1. Court of Justice of the European Union
Judgement of the Court, of April 26 of 2017, Case C-564/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Plea alleging infringement of EU law raised by the Court of its own motion. Principles of equivalence and effectiveness. Common system of value added tax. Directive 2006/112/EC. Right to deduct input tax. Reverse charge system. Article 199(1)(g). Application only in the case of immovable property. Undue payment of the tax by the purchaser of property to the seller as a result of an incorrectly drawn up invoice. Tax authority’s decision holding that the property purchaser has an outstanding tax liability, refusing payment of the deduction sought by the purchaser, and imposing a penalty tax
“Article 199(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted to the effect that it applies to the supply of immovable property sold by a judgment debtor in a compulsory sale procedure.
The provisions of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, and the principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality must be interpreted to the effect that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, they do not preclude the purchaser of an item of property from being deprived of the right to deduct the value added tax which he paid to the seller when that tax was not due, on the basis of an invoice drawn up in accordance with the rules of the ordinary value added tax regime, where the relevant transaction came under the reverse charge mechanism, and the seller paid that tax to the Treasury. However, to the extent that reimbursement of the unduly invoiced value added tax by the seller to the purchaser becomes impossible or excessively difficult, in particular in the case of the insolvency of the seller, those principles require that the purchaser be able to address his application for reimbursement to the tax authority directly.
The principle of proportionality must be interpreted to the effect that it precludes national tax authorities, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, from imposing on a taxable person, who purchased an item of property the transfer of which comes under the reverse charge regime, a tax penalty of 50% of the amount of value added tax which he is required to pay to the tax authority, where those authorities suffered no loss of tax revenue and there is no evidence of tax evasion, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.”
Judgement of the Court, of April 5 of 2017, Case C-217/15 e C-350/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Taxation. Value added tax. Directive 2006/112/EC. Articles 2 and 273. National legislation providing for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same offences, relating to the non-payment of value added tax. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 50. Ne bis in idem principle. Identity of the accused or penalised person. Absence.
“Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits criminal proceedings to be brought for non-payment of value added tax, after the imposition of a definitive tax penalty with respect to the same act or omission, where that penalty was imposed on a company with legal personality, while those criminal proceedings were brought against a natural person.”
Judgment of the Court, of 26 April 2017, Case C‑527/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Intellectual and industrial property. Directive 2001/29/EC. Harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights. Article 3(1). Communication to the public. Definition. Sale of a multimedia player. Add-ons. Publication of works without the consent of the right holder. Access to streaming websites. Article 5(1) and (5). Right of reproduction. Exceptions and limitations. Lawful use.
“The concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as covering the sale of a multimedia player, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on which there are pre-installed add-ons, available on the internet, containing hyperlinks to websites — that are freely accessible to the public — on which copyright-protected works have been made available to the public without the consent of the right holders.
Article 5(1) and (5) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that acts of temporary reproduction, on a multimedia player, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a copyright-protected work obtained by streaming from a website belonging to a third party offering that work without the consent of the copyright holder does not satisfy the conditions set out in those provisions.”
Judgment of the Court of 6 April 2017, Case C‑668/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. Directive 2000/43/EC. Article 2(2)(a) and (b). Credit institution requiring persons applying for a loan to purchase a car who have produced a driving license indicating a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association as a form of identification to provide additional proof of identity in the form of a copy of a passport or residence permit.
“Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin is to be interpreted as not precluding the practice of a credit institution which requires a customer whose driving licence indicates a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association to produce additional identification in the form of a copy of the customer’s passport or residence permit.”
III.2. Constitutional Court
Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 119/2017 of March 15, Case 782/2016:
Establishes that the provision in article 33, no. 2 of the Ordinance no. 419-A/2009 of April 17 amended by the Ordinance no. 82/2012 of March 12 is unconstitutional, as does not comply with the article 165, no. 1, paragraph b) and article 20, no. 1 of the Constitution.
III.3. Courts of Justice
Judgment of Coimbra’ Court of Appeal of 4 April 2017, Case No. 210/08.2TBLMG-B.C1: Insolvency. Ranking of Credits. Provision of guarantees. Purchase and sale promissory agreement. The right to withhold.
Judgment of Porto’ Court of Appeal of 4 April 2017, Case No. 94/16.7T8PNH-A.C1: Regulates the exercise of parental responsibilities. Regime.
III.4. Administrative and Tax Courts
Judgment of the Administrative Supreme Court, of April 5 of 2017, Case nº 0399/15: Indemnity interest. Error of the services. Legality principle. Unconstitutionality,
Judgment of the Administrative Supreme Court, of April 6 of 2017, Case nº 500/13.2BEALM
Municipal Property Tax. Valuation. Land for construction. Location Coefficient.
Partilhar este artigo