III.1. Court of Justice of the European Union
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 12 September 2018, Case C‑69/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Taxation. Value added tax (VAT). Right of deduction. Acquisitions made by a taxpayer declared ‘inactive’ by the tax authorities. Refusal of the right of deduction. Principles of proportionality and neutrality of VAT.
“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, in particular Articles 213, 214 and 273 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which it is permissible for the tax authorities to refuse,on account of a failure to submit tax returns, a taxable person which has made acquisitions in the period during which its value added tax identification number was revoked the right to deduct value added tax on those acquisitions using value added tax returns filed — or invoices issued — after the reactivation of its identification number, on the sole ground that those acquisitions took place in the period during which its value added tax identification number was de-activated and where the substantive requirements have been satisfied and the right of deduction is not being invoked fraudulently or abusively.”
Judgment of the Court of 13 September 2018, Case C‑369/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Area of freedom, security and justice. Borders, asylum and immigration. Refugee status or subsidiary protection status. Directive 2011/95/EU. Article 17. Exclusion from subsidiary protection status. Grounds. Conviction for a serious crime. Determination of seriousness based on the penalty provided for under national law. Whether permissible. Need for an individual assessment.
“Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the applicant for subsidiary protection is deemed to have ‘committed a serious crime’ within the meaning of that provision, which may exclude him from that protection, on the basis of the sole criterion of the penalty provided for a specific crime under the law of that Member State. It is for the authority or competent national court ruling on the application for subsidiary protection to assess the seriousness of the crime at issue, by carrying out a full investigation into all the circumstances of the individual case concerned.”
Judgment of the Court of 20 September 2018, Case C‑448/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Consumer credit agreement. Directive 93/13/EEC. Unfair terms. Article 4(2) and Article 5. Obligation to draft terms in plain intelligible language. Article 7. Actions brought before the courts by persons or organisations having a legitimate interest in protecting consumers against the use of unfair terms. National law making the possibility for a consumer protection association to intervene in the proceedings subject to the consumer’s consent. Consumer credit. Directive 87/102/EEC. Article 4(2). Obligation to indicate the annual percentage rate in the written agreement. Agreement containing only a mathematical formula for calculating the annual percentage rate without the information necessary to make that calculation.
“Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read together with the principle of equivalence, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prevents a consumer protection organisation from intervening, in the interests of the consumer, in proceedings seeking an order for payment concerning an individual consumer and to lodge an objection in the absence of a challenge to that order by the consumer if that legislation in fact subjects intervention by consumer associations in disputes falling within the scope of Union law to less favourable conditions than those applicable to disputes exclusively within the scope of national law, which is for the referring court to ascertain.
Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that in the main proceedings, which, although providing, at the stage at which the order for payment is made against the consumer, for an assessment of the unfair nature of the terms in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, first, entrusts the power to grant that order to an administrative officer of a court who is not a magistrate and, second, provides for a period of 15 days within which to lodge a statement of opposition and requires that the latter contain reasons on the substance, where there is no provision for such an assessment by the court of its own motion at the stage of enforcement of that order, which is for the referring court to ascertain.
Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, where a consumer credit agreement does not mention the annual percentage rate of charge and contains only a mathematical formula for the calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge without the information necessary to make that calculation and, second, does not mention the rate of interest, such a fact is decisive evidence in the assessment undertaken by the national court concerned as to whether the term of that agreement relating to the total cost of the credit is drafted in plain intelligible language, within the meaning of that provision.”
III.2. Constitutional Court
Judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 376/2018, of September 18: Declares the unconstitutionality with general binding force of the norm contained in the number 1 paragraph d) of article 22 of Law no. 34/2013, of 16 May (Establishes the regime of the exercise of private security activity), and, regarding the reference to the same made by the rules in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of that article, for violation of paragraph 1 of the Article 47 and Article 18 (2) of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.
III.3. Courts of Justice
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of September 5, 2018, Case no. 415/17.5T8LSB.L1.S1: Working hours. Working period. Change of working hours. Change of work contract.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Porto of September 11, Case no. 1211/17.5T8AMT-E.P1: Graduation of credits. Social Security Contributions. Commercial pledge. Labour credits. Order. Graduation.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Coimbra of September 11, Case no. 6928/15.6T8CBR.C1: Lease agreement. Resolution. Non-payment of rents. Exception of non-compliance. Construction. Communication.
III.4. Administrative and Tax Courts
Judgement of supreme Administrative Court of September 5, Case no. 0777/18: Limitation period.
Share this article