{"id":4184,"date":"2017-08-03T14:20:53","date_gmt":"2017-08-03T14:20:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mgra.pt\/caselaw-july-2017\/"},"modified":"2020-10-06T10:44:59","modified_gmt":"2020-10-06T10:44:59","slug":"caselaw-july-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/2017\/08\/03\/caselaw-july-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"CASE-LAW – JULY 2017 –"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

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

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

Judgment of the Court, of 13th July, Case C-633\/15<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

Reference for a preliminary ruling\u00a0\u2014 Taxation\u00a0\u2014 Value added tax (VAT)\u00a0\u2014 Directive 2006\/112\/EC\u00a0\u2014 Exemptions of supplies of services closely linked to sport\u00a0\u2014 Article\u00a0133\u00a0\u2014 Exclusion of the exemption in the event of a risk of distortion of competition to the disadvantage of commercial enterprises subject to VAT\u00a0\u2014 Services supplied by non-profit making organisations governed by public law<\/p>\n

Summary:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe second paragraph of Article 133 of Council Directive 2006\/112 of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State from providing that compliance with the condition laid down in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 133 of that directive is a prerequisite for the grant of a VAT exemption to bodies governed by public law that supply services closely linked to sport or physical education, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of that directive, even though, on the one hand, on 1 January 1989 that Member State did not apply VAT to all those supplies of services and, on the other, the supplies of services at issue were not exempted from VAT before the requirement of compliance with that condition was imposed.
\nThe second paragraph of Article 133 of Directive 2006\/112 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where that legislation provides that compliance with the condition laid down in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 133 of that directive is a prerequisite for the grant of a VAT exemption to non-profit making organisations governed by public law making supplies of services closely linked to sport or physical education, within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of that directive, but fails also to apply that condition to non-profit making organisations other than those governed by public law that make such supplies of services.\u201d<\/p>\n

http:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX:62015CJ0633&qid=1501501354658<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Judgement of the Court of 26th July, Case n\u00ba C<\/strong>\u2011<\/strong>386<\/strong>\/16<\/strong>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Reference for a preliminary ruling\u00a0\u2014 Common system of value added tax (VAT)\u00a0\u2014 Directive 2006\/112\/EC\u00a0\u2014 Article\u00a0138(1)\u00a0\u2014 Classification of a transaction as an intra-Community supply\u00a0\u2014 Exemption of intra-Community supplies of goods\u00a0\u2014 Intention of the person acquiring the goods to resell them to a taxable person in another Member State before they are taken out of the first Member State\u00a0\u2014 Possible effect of some of the goods being processed before they are dispatched<\/p>\n

Summary:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cArticle\u00a0138(1) of Council Directive 2006\/112\/EC of 28\u00a0November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a supply of goods by a taxable person established in a first Member State is not exempt from value added tax under that provision where, prior to entering into that supply transaction, the person acquiring the goods, who is identified for value added tax purposes in a second Member State, informs the supplier that the goods will be resold immediately to a taxable person established in a third Member State, before he takes them out of the first Member State and transports them to that third taxable person, provided that that second supply has in fact been carried out and the goods have then been transported from the first Member State to the Member State of the third taxable person. The fact that the first person acquiring the goods is identified for value added tax purposes in a Member State other than that of the place of the first supply or that of the place of the final acquisition is not a criterion for classification of an intra-Community transaction or, in itself, evidence sufficient to show that a transaction is an intra-Community one.<\/em><\/p>\n

For the purposes of interpreting Article\u00a0138(1) of Directive 2006\/112, processing of the goods, in the course of a chain of two successive supplies, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, carried out on the instructions of the middleman acquiring the goods and before the goods are transported to the Member State of the person finally acquiring them, has no effect on the conditions for any exemption of the first supply where that processing takes place after the first supply.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

http:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0386&qid=1501501978617<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 353\/2017 of July 8, Case 3\/2017: <\/strong><\/p>\n

Deems to be unconstitutional the rule that\u00a0 requires the payment of the initial judicial fee in 10 days from the date of the communication to the applicant of the unfavorable ruling by the social security services on the attribution of legal aid, notwithstanding the subsequent reimbursement of the amounts paid, in case one successfully challenges said ruling, pursuant to subparagraph c), paragraph 5, article no. 29, Law no. 34\/2004, of July 29, for violating the right of access to courts and the right to judicial protection, enacted in article no. 20, paragraph 1, of the Portuguese Constitution.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.tribunalconstitucional.pt\/tc\/acordaos\/20170353.html<\/p>\n

Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 396\/2017 of July 12, Case 124\/2017: <\/strong><\/p>\n

Deems unconstitutional the provision in article no. 131, subparagraph 1, of the Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code, in the aspect that it establishes the total incapacity to testify of a person, with the status of victim or offended of a crime in said proceedings, that is legally restricted because of intellectual disabilities, for infringing on the principle of the due process (article no. 20, subparagraph 4, of the Portuguese Constitution), combined with the principle that forbids excessive measures (article no. 18, subparagraph 2, of the Portuguese Constitution).<\/p>\n

\u00a0http:\/\/www.tribunalconstitucional.pt\/tc\/acordaos\/20170396.html<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 401\/2017 of July 12, Case 658\/2018: <\/strong><\/p>\n

Deems unconstitutional, for infringing article no. 20.\u00ba, subparagraphs 1 and 4, combined with article no. 18, subparagraph 2, of the Portuguese Constitution, the provision contained in article no. 17-G, subparagraph 4, of the Portuguese Insolvency Proceedings and Companies Rehabilitation Code, when interpreted in a way that the report from the provisional judicial administrator concludes that the insolvency situation is equivalente to the presentation by the debtor, when he disagrees with said insolvency status.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.tribunalconstitucional.pt\/tc\/acordaos\/20170401.html<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Judgment of Lisbon\u2019s Court of Appeal of 6 July 2017, Case No. <\/strong>6961\/16.0T8LSB.L1-2<\/strong>:<\/strong> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>Bank Resolution. Settlement. Subsequent uselessness of the Legal Action. Substantive Legitimacy.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jtrl.nsf\/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec\/ce6d4bd43e4694c98025815d003a8a82?OpenDocument<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judgment of Lisbon\u2019s Court of Appeal of 20 July 2017, Case No.<\/strong> 2412\/14.3TVFUN-B.L1-2:<\/strong> Especial Proceedings for the Rehabilitation of a Company. Negotiation Deadline. Creditors. Rehabilitation of Company.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jtrl.nsf\/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec\/534ace4e5d546a508025816e004859ac?OpenDocument<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of July 5, Case n\u00ba 01253\/16<\/strong><\/p>\n

Liquidation act. Officious Liquidation. VAT. Lack of reasoning<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jsta.nsf\/35fbbbf22e1bb1e680256f8e003ea931\/61cc7040596896b580258145004d46e7?OpenDocument<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of July 5, Case n\u00ba 0567\/16<\/strong><\/p>\n

Corporation Tax. Agreement on\u00a0the Avoidance of Double Taxation. Dismissal. Tax Withholding.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jsta.nsf\/35fbbbf22e1bb1e680256f8e003ea931\/5317a0a5e7daf54b8025815b003ec6c3?OpenDocument<\/a><\/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":4165,"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-4184","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\/4184","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=4184"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4184\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4165"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}