{"id":5653,"date":"2018-12-05T12:51:03","date_gmt":"2018-12-05T12:51:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mgra.pt\/?p=5653\/"},"modified":"2020-10-05T18:50:57","modified_gmt":"2020-10-05T18:50:57","slug":"jurisprudencia_11-2018-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/2018\/12\/05\/jurisprudencia_11-2018-2\/","title":{"rendered":"CASE-LAW – NOVEMBER 2018"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

Judgment of the Court of November 22, Case C<\/strong>\u2011<\/strong>625\/17<\/strong>: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Articles 56 and 63 TFEU. Freedom to provide services and free movement of capital. Credit institutions. Stability charge and the special contribution for that charge determined according to the unconsolidated balance sheet total of credit institutions established in Austria. Inclusion of cross-border banking transactions. Exclusion of subsidiaries\u2019 transactions in another Member State. Difference in treatment. Restriction. Justification.
\nSummary<\/u><\/strong>:\u00a0\u201cArticle 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it imposes on credit institutions established in Austria, such as the credit institution at issue in the main proceedings, which do not supply services to their clients resident in other Member States through permanent credit institutions established in those Member States, a charge determined according to the \u2018average unconsolidated balance sheet total\u2019, which includes the banking transactions which those institutions enter into directly with nationals of other Member States, whilst excluding the same transactions entered into by subsidiaries of credit institutions established in Austria where those subsidiaries are established in other Member States.<\/em>\u201d
\nhttp:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/juris\/document\/document_print.jsf?docid=207968&text=&dir=&doclang=EN&part=1&occ=first&mode=lst&pageIndex=0&cid=199547<\/a><\/p>\n

Judgment of the Court of November 29, Case C<\/strong>\u2011<\/strong>548\/17<\/strong>: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Taxation. Value added tax (VAT). Taxation of professional football player agencies. Payment by instalments and subject to a condition. Chargeable event, chargeability and collection of the tax.
\nSummary<\/u><\/strong>: \u201cArticle 63 of Council Directive 2006\/112\/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 64(1) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding the chargeable event and chargeability of a tax on the supply of agency services for professional football players by an agent, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, paid in conditional instalments over several years further to the placement, from being regarded as occurring or taking effect when the player is placed.<\/em>\u201d
\nhttp:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/juris\/document\/document_print.jsf?docid=208275&text=&dir=&doclang=EN&part=1&occ=first&mode=lst&pageIndex=0&cid=201465<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 557\/2018 of November 14<\/strong>: Decides the unconstitutional, with general binding force, of the Article 100 of the Insolvency and Corporate Recovery Code, interpreted as meaning that the insolvency declaration provided for therein suspends the prescription period of the tax debts attributable to the subsidiary responsible person in the tax procedure.
\nhttps:\/\/data.dre.pt\/eli\/actconst\/557\/2018\/11\/14\/p\/dre\/pt\/html<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Guimar\u00e3es of October 31, Case No. <\/strong>32\/18.2T8BCG.G1<\/strong>: Commercial company. Judicial inquiry to the company. Inquiry provided for in article 67 of the Commercial Companies Code. Essential requirements.
\nhttp:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jtrg.nsf\/86c25a698e4e7cb7802579ec004d3832\/cc40e668bfc558028025834a00329041?OpenDocument<\/a><\/p>\n

Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Lisbon of November 22, Case No. <\/strong>1295\/17.6T8MMN.L1-8<\/strong>: Insurance contract. Annulability. Omissions and inaccuracies committed with intent to defraud. . Pre-contractual liability. Essentiality of error.
\nhttp:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jtrl.nsf\/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec\/6d9a61cf77e9a16e80258354003360d6?OpenDocument<\/a><\/p>\n

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

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

Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of November 14, Case No. <\/strong>0844\/04.4BELSB 0934\/17<\/strong>: Double tax treaty. Withholding tax. Residence. Proof.
\nhttp:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jsta.nsf\/35fbbbf22e1bb1e680256f8e003ea931\/7143f415f3fdef688025834b00534752?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=1#_Section1<\/a><\/p>\n

Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of November 14, Case No. <\/strong>0807\/14.1BEVIS 0816\/18<\/strong>: Opposition. Prescription. Return of the Tax.
\nhttp:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jsta.nsf\/35fbbbf22e1bb1e680256f8e003ea931\/01dd1fa5aa7a47068025834a00389ef3?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=1#_Section1<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

Share this article<\/p>

<\/i><\/a><\/i><\/a><\/i><\/a><\/i><\/span><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":5667,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rs_blank_template":"","rs_page_bg_color":"","slide_template_v7":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[26,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5653","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-e-legal-en","category-e-legal18"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5653","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5653"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5653\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5667"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}