III.1. Court of Justice of the European Union
Judgment of the Court of 19 April 2018, Case C-525/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Competition. Abuse of dominant position. Article 102, second paragraph, point (c), TFEU. Concept of “disadvantage in competition”. Discriminatory prices in the downstream market. Society for the management of rights related to copyright. Fee payable by the national service providers for the transmission of the pay-TV signal and its content.
“The concept of ‘competitive disadvantage’, for the purposes of subparagraph (c) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU, must be interpreted to the effect that, where a dominant undertaking applies discriminatory prices to trade partners on the downstream market, it covers a situation in which that behaviour is capable of distorting competition between those trade partners. A finding of such a ‘competitive disadvantage’ does not require proof of actual quantifiable deterioration in the competitive situation, but must be based on an analysis of all the relevant circumstances of the case leading to the conclusion that that behaviour has an effect on the costs, profits or any other relevant interest of one or more of those partners, so that that conduct is such as to affect that situation.”
Judgment of the Court of 26 April 2018, Case no. C‑81/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Taxation. Directive 2006/112/EC. Common system of value added tax (VAT). Deduction of input tax. Right to a refund of VAT. Transactions relating to a tax period that has already been the subject of a tax inspection which has concluded. National legislation. Possibility for the taxable person to correct tax returns which have already been covered by a tax inspection. Precluded. Principle of effectiveness. Fiscal neutrality. Legal certainty.
“Articles 167, 168, 179, 180 and 182 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, and the principles of effectiveness, fiscal neutrality and proportionality must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, by way of derogation from the five-year limitation period imposed by national law for the correction of value added tax (VAT) returns, prevents, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a taxable person from making such a correction in order to claim his right of deduction on the sole ground that that correction relates to a period that has already been the subject of a tax inspection.”
Judgment of the Court of 19 April 2018, Case no. C‑580/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Taxation. Value added tax (VAT). Directive 2006/112/EC. Place of intra-Community acquisition. Article 42. Intra-Community acquisition of goods that are the object of a subsequent supply. Article 141. Exemption. Triangular transaction. Simplification measures. Article 265. Correction of recapitulative statement
“Article 141(c) 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 as meaning that the requirement laid down in that provision is met where the taxable person is resident and identified for value added tax (VAT) purposes in the Member State from which the goods are dispatched or transported, but that that taxable person uses the VAT identification number of another Member State for that specific intra-Community acquisition.
Articles 42 and 265 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, read in conjunction with Article 263 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, must be interpreted as precluding the tax authorities of a Member State from applying the first paragraph of Article 41 of Directive 2006/112 solely on the ground that, in the context of an intra-Community acquisition, made for the purposes of a subsequent supply in the territory of a Member State, the recapitulative statement, referred to in Article 265 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, was not submitted in good time by the taxable person identified for value added tax (VAT) purposes in that Member State.”
III.2. Constitutional Court
Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 187/2018, Case no. 41/2017: Does not deem unconstitutional the normative interpretation of articles 2 and 3, no. 1, of Law no. 62/2011, of 12 December, according to which the owner of the industrial property right cannot sue the holder of the Marketing Authorization or the applicant for the application for marketing authorization, under the terms and for the purposes set forth in the same Law, beyond the thirty days, from the publication, through the electronic page of Infarmed, referred to in article 15-A of Decree-Law no. 176/2006, of August 30, in the wording conferred by Law no. 62/2011.
III.3. Courts of Justice
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Guimarães of April 5, Case 340/16.7T8MNC.G1: Legitimacy of the proceedings. Sale in insolvency to the creditor secured by mortgage. Lease after mortgage.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Porto of 11 April, Case 984/17.0T8PNF.P1: Financial intermediation agreement. False information. Compensation for non-pecuniary damages.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Évora of April 12, Case 1865/13.1TBSTR-AE1: Incident of qualification of insolvency. Presentation to insolvency.
III.4. Administrative and Tax Courts
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of April 11, 2018, Case No. 0276/17: Free movement of capital. Taxation. Dividends. Insufficiency of the facts.
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of April 18, 2018, Case No. 01171/17: Gains. Property sale. Insolvency Procedure. Administrator of Insolvency.
Partilhar este artigo