III.1. Court of Justice of the European Union
Judgement of the Court, of 4 October 2017, Case C-164/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Value added tax (VAT). Directive 2006/112/EC. Article 14(2)(b). Supply of goods. Motor vehicles. Finance lease with an option to purchase.
“The words ‘contract for hire which provides that in the normal course of events ownership is to pass at the latest upon payment of the final instalment’, used in Article 14(2)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as applying to a leasing contract with an option to purchase if it can be inferred from the financial terms of the contract that exercising the option appears to be the only economically rational choice that the lessee will be able to make at the appropriate time if the contract is performed for its full term, which it is for the national court to ascertain.”
Judgement of the Court, of 19 October 2017, Case C‑295/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Consumer protection. Directive 2005/29/EC. Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices. Scope of that directive. Sale by a wholesaler to retailers. Jurisdiction of the Court. National legislation laying down a general prohibition on selling at a loss. Exceptions based on criteria not provided for by that directive.
“Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which contains a general prohibition on offering for sale or selling goods at a loss and which lays down grounds of derogation from that prohibition that are based on criteria not appearing in that directive.”
Judgement of the Court, of 25 October 2017, Case C‑106/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Freedom of establishment. Cross-border conversion of a company. Transfer of its registered office without transfer of its real head office. Refusal to remove it from the commercial register. National legislation whereby removal from commercial register is dependent on the winding up of a company after a liquidation procedure. Scope of freedom of establishment. Restriction on freedom of establishment. Protection of the interests of creditors, minority shareholders and employees. Prevention of abusive practices.
“Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that freedom of establishment is applicable to the transfer of the registered office of a company formed in accordance with the law of one Member State to the territory of another Member State, for the purposes of its conversion, in accordance with the conditions imposed by the legislation of the other Member State, into a company incorporated under the law of the latter Member State, when there is no change in the location of the real head office of that company.
Articles 49 and 54 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the transfer of the registered office of a company incorporated under the law of one Member State to the territory of another Member State, for the purposes of its conversion into a company incorporated under the law of the latter Member State, in accordance with the conditions imposed by the legislation of that Member State, is subject to the liquidation of the first company.”
Judgement of the Court of 26 October 2017, Case C‑90/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Taxation. Value added tax (VAT). Directive 2006/112/EC. Exemption for supplies of services closely linked to sport. Definition of ‘sport’. Activity characterised by a physical element. Duplicate bridge.
“Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as duplicate bridge, which is characterised by a physical element that appears to be negligible, is not covered by the concept of ‘sport’ within the meaning of that provision.”
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.
“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.”
III.2. Constitutional Court
Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 652/2017 of October 11, Case 251/2016: Establishes that the provision in article no. 531, of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, is unconstitutional when interpreted in a way that does not require prior hearing of the interested party when deciding the payment of a surplus penalty charge.
III.3. Courts of Justice
Judgment of the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice of October 3 2017, Case No. 569/13.0TBCSC.L1.S1: Insurance Law. Insurance Contract. Home Insurance. Consumer Law. General Contractual Terms. Communication of Terms and Provisions and Duties of Information.
Judgment of Lisbon’s Court of Appeal of October 19 2017, Case No. 79/12.2TNLSB.L1-2: Maritime Transportation. Penalty Clause. Abuse of Process.
III.4. Administrative and Tax Courts
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of October 4, Case no. 01450/16: Exchange. Real Estate Property. Mandatory Time Limit for the Exercise of a Right.
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of October 18, Case no. 0159/17: Real Estate Property Classification. Municipal Interest.
Partilhar este artigo