III. CASE- LAW
III.1. Court of Justice of the European Union
Judgment of the court of 25 July, Case C‑338/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Social policy. Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency. Directive 2008/94/EC. Articles 3 and 4. Employees’ claims borne by guarantee institutions. Limitation on the liability of guarantee institutions. Exclusion of wage claims arising over three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings.
“Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Article 4(1) of the Zakon za garantiranite vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite pri nesastoyatelnost na rabotodatelia (Law on employees’ guaranteed claims in the event of the employer’s insolvency), which does not guarantee the wage claims of employees whose employment relationship ended more than three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings in respect of their employer.”
Judgment of the court of 25 July 2018, Case C‑140/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Value added tax (VAT). Directive 2006/112/EC. Articles 167, 168 and 184. Deduction of input tax. Adjustment. Immovable property acquired as capital goods. Initial allocation to an activity which does not confer entitlement to deduct input tax and subsequently also to an activity subject to VAT. Public body. Taxable-person status at the time of the taxable transaction.
“Articles 167, 168 and 184 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of the neutrality of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding abody governed by public law from being entitled to a right to adjustment of deductions of value added tax paid on immovable property acquired as capital goods in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where, at the time of the acquisition of those goods, first, they could, by their very nature, be used both for taxable activities and for non-taxable activities but were initially used for non-taxable activities, and second, that public body had not expressly stated its intention to use those goods for a taxable activity but had also not excluded the possibility that they might be used for such a purpose, so long as it follows from an assessment of all the factual circumstances, which it is for the referring court to carry out, that the condition laid down by Article 168 of Directive 2006/112, according to which the taxable person must have acted as a taxable person at the time when it made that acquisition, is satisfied.”
Judgment of the court of 25 July 2018, Case C‑533/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Freedom to provide services. Corporate taxation. Payments made by a company resident in a Member State to non-resident companies for the leasing of rail tankers. Obligation to charge withholding tax on income from a domestic source paid to a non-resident company. Non-compliance. Double taxation conventions. Charging the resident company default interest for non-payment of the withholding tax. Interest payable from the expiry of the statutory time limit for payment until the date on which evidence that the double taxation convention is applicable is furnished. Irrecoverable interest
“Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby the payment of income by a resident company to a company established in another Member State is, in principle, subject to withholding tax, except where otherwise provided in the double taxation convention entered into between those two Member States, if that legislation requires the resident company, which neither deducts nor pays that sum to the tax authorities of the first Member State, to pay irrecoverable default interest for the period from the expiry of the time limit for payment of the income tax up to the date on which the non-resident company proves that the requirements for the application of the double taxation convention have been fulfilled, even though, in accordance with that convention, the non-resident company is not liable to pay any tax in the first Member State or the amount thereof is lower than that normally payable under the tax law of that Member State.”
III.2. Constitutional Court
Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 319/2018, of July 7: Declares unconstitutional, with general binding force, the norms of paragraphs 1 to 3 of article 16 of Decree-Law no. 220/2008, of 12 November [legal framework for fire safety in buildings (SCIE)], both in the wording given to it by Decree-Law no. 224/2015, of 9 October, and in its original version.
III.3. Courts of Justice
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Lisbon of 21 July, Case 7747 / 17.0T8LSB.L1-6: Financial intermediary. Financial products. Duty of information to the client. Breach of customer information duty. Compensation obligation. Severe guilt.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Porto of July 11, Case No. 824 / 06.5TYVNG-B.P1: Common Credit. Guaranteed Loans.
III.4. Administrative and Tax Courts
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of July 4, Case No. 0580/18: Tax execution. Payment by instalments.
Judgement of the North Central Administrative Court of July 25, Case No. 01116/11.3BEPRT: Oposition to the tax execution. Judgment of the facts. Management in fact.
Partilhar este artigo