{"id":3990,"date":"2017-04-04T11:11:55","date_gmt":"2017-04-04T11:11:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mgra.pt\/?p=3990\/"},"modified":"2020-10-06T10:45:00","modified_gmt":"2020-10-06T10:45:00","slug":"jurisprudencia_03_2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/2017\/04\/04\/jurisprudencia_03_2017\/","title":{"rendered":"CASE LAW – MARCH 2017 –"},"content":{"rendered":"

III. CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

III.1. Court of Justice of the European Union<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judgment of the Court of 2 of March of 2017, Case C-496\/15:
\n<\/strong>Reference for a preliminary ruling. Freedom of movement for workers. Article 45 TFEU. Regulation (EU) No 492\/2011. Article 7. Equal treatment. Frontier worker subject to income tax in the Member State of residence. Benefit paid by the Member State of employment in the event of the employer\u2019s insolvency. Detailed rules for the calculation of the insolvency benefit. Notional taking into account of the income tax of the Member State of employment. Insolvency benefit lower than the previous net remuneration. Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation.<\/p>\n

Summary:
\n<\/u><\/strong>\u201cArticle 45 TFUE and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492\/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the amount of the insolvency benefit awarded by a Member State to a frontier worker who is not subject to income tax in that State, and for whom that benefit, under the provisions applicable to him, is not taxable, from being determined by deducting income tax, as it applies in that State, from the remuneration used to calculate that benefit, with the consequence that that frontier worker, unlike persons working and residing in that State, does not receive a benefit corresponding to his previous net remuneration. The fact that that worker does not have a claim against his employer corresponding to the part of his previous gross salary which he has not received because of that deduction has no effect in that regard.\u201d
\n<\/em>http:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/HTML\/?uri=CELEX:62015CJ0496&qid=1490712726762&from=EN<\/a><\/p>\n

Judgement of the Court, of March 8, Case <\/strong>C-448\/15: <\/strong>Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2014 Parent companies and subsidiaries established in different Member States \u2014 Common system of taxation applicable \u2014 Corporation tax \u2014 Directive 90\/435\/EEC \u2014 Scope \u2014 Article 2(c) \u2014 Company subject to tax without the possibility of an option or of being exempt \u2014 Taxation at a zero rate.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Summary:
\n<\/u><\/strong>\u201cCouncil Directive 90\/435\/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States must be construed to the effect that Article 5(1) does not preclude legislation of a Member State whereby an advance tax on investment income is levied on dividends paid by a subsidiary established in that Member State to a fiscal investment institution established in another Member State which is subject to corporation tax at a zero rate, provided that all of its profits are paid to its shareholders, since such an institution does not constitute a \u2018company of a Member State\u2019 for the purposes of that directive.\u201d
\n<\/em>http:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/juris\/document\/document.jsf?text=&docid=188663&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=326679<\/a><\/p>\n

III.2. Constitutional Court<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 119\/2017 of March 15, Case 782\/2016:
\n<\/strong>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 doesn\u2019t comply with the article 165, no. 1, paragraph b) and article 20, no. 1 of the Constitution.
\nhttp:\/\/www.tribunalconstitucional.pt\/tc\/acordaos\/20170119.html<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>III.3. Courts of Justice<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judgment of Porto\u2019 Court of Appeal of 13 March 2017, Case No.<\/strong> 1083\/16.7T8OAZ.P1:<\/strong> Special process of revitalisation. Approval of the recovery plan. Constitutive quorum. Deliberative quorum.
\nhttp:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jtrp.nsf\/56a6e7121657f91e80257cda00381fdf\/af60beafff0060e1802580ec0055c6f9?OpenDocument<\/a><\/p>\n

Judgment of Evora\u2019 Court of Appeal of 9 March 2017, Case No. <\/strong>437\/14.8TBVRS.E1<\/strong>:<\/strong> Corporate Group. Provision of guarantees.
\nhttp:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jtre.nsf\/134973db04f39bf2802579bf005f080b\/e374151b3f8eb033802580ec0057865f?OpenDocument<\/a><\/p>\n

III.4. Administrative and Tax Courts<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judgment of the Administrative Supreme Court, of March 8, Case No. <\/strong>01406\/16: <\/strong>VAT. General Taxation Infringement Regime. Tax offense. Summary description of the facts. Nullity. Lack of tax delivery.
\nhttp:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jsta.nsf\/35fbbbf22e1bb1e680256f8e003ea931\/280120a281677770802580e200389562?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=1<\/a><\/p>\n

Judgment of the Administrative Supreme Court, of March 8, Case No. <\/strong>0942\/16: <\/strong>VAT. General Taxation Law. Compensatory interest. Fault. Indemnity interest. Error attributable to services.
\nhttp:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jsta.nsf\/35fbbbf22e1bb1e680256f8e003ea931\/82750ff5df355469802580e500350e33?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=1<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

Partilhar este artigo<\/p>

<\/i><\/a><\/i><\/a><\/i><\/a><\/i><\/span><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":3979,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rs_blank_template":"","rs_page_bg_color":"","slide_template_v7":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[26,30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3990","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-e-legal-en","category-e-legal17"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3990","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3990"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3990\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3979"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3990"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3990"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3990"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}