{"id":5688,"date":"2019-01-04T15:02:35","date_gmt":"2019-01-04T15:02:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mgra.pt\/?p=5688"},"modified":"2020-10-05T18:50:56","modified_gmt":"2020-10-05T18:50:56","slug":"jurisprudencia_12-2018-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/2019\/01\/04\/jurisprudencia_12-2018-2\/","title":{"rendered":"CASE-LAW – DECEMBER 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 December 4, Case C<\/strong>\u2011<\/strong>378\/17: <\/strong>Reference for a preliminary ruling. Equal treatment in employment. Directive 2000\/78\/EC. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age. Recruitment of police officers. National body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a area. Power to disapply national legislation that conflicts with EU law. Primacy of EU law.
\nSummary:<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0\u201cEU law, in particular the principle of primacy of EU law, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a national body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area lacks jurisdiction to decide to disapply a rule of national law that is contrary to EU law.\u201d
\n<\/em>https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/HTML\/?uri=CELEX:62017CJ0378&from=PT<\/a><\/p>\n

Judgment of the Court of December 6, Case C\u2013672\/17:<\/strong> Reference for a preliminary ruling. Value added tax (VAT). Taxable amount. Reduction. Principle of fiscal neutrality.
\nSummary: <\/u><\/strong>\u00a0\u201cThe principle of neutrality as well as Articles 90 and 273 of Council Directive 2006\/112\/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the reduction of the taxable amount for value added tax (VAT), in the event of non-payment, cannot be made by the taxable person until it has given prior notice of its intention to cancel all or part of the VAT to the purchaser of goods or services, if that purchaser is a taxable person, for the purposes of correcting the deduction of VAT that the latter has made.\u201d
\n<\/em>https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/HTML\/?uri=CELEX:62017CJ0672&from=PT<\/a><\/p>\n

Judgment of the Court of December 19, Case C<\/strong>\u2011<\/strong>374\/17: <\/strong>Reference for a preliminary ruling. State aid. Article 107 TFEU. Real property transfer tax. Exemption. Transfers in ownership of a property occurring as a result of restructuring procedures carried out within certain groups of companies. Concept of \u2018State aid\u2019. Condition relating to selectivity. Justification.
\nSummary:<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0\u201cArticle 107 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a tax advantage, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in exempting from real property transfer tax the transfer of ownership of a property which occurred because of a restructuring procedure involving only companies of the same group, linked by a shareholding of at least 95% during a minimum, uninterrupted period of five years prior to that procedure and of five years thereafter, does not fulfil the condition relating to the selectivity of the advantage concerned, laid down in Article 107 TFEU.\u201d
\n<\/em>https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/HTML\/?uri=CELEX:62017CJ0374&from=PT<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 595\/2018 of December 11<\/strong>: Decides, with general binding force, the unconstitutionality, of the rule that establishes the prohibition to appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice from the decisions of the Court of Appeal judgment, in the specific cases of acquittal at first degree court, then condemns the defendants in a term of imprisonment of less than five years, as foreseen in article 400, paragraph 1 e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the drafting of Law no. 20\/2013 of February 21 .
\nhttps:\/\/data.dre.pt\/eli\/actconst\/595\/2018\/12\/11\/p\/dre\/pt\/html<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court of December 6, Case no. 456 \/ 14.4 TVLSB.L1.S1: <\/strong>Loss of chance. Causal link. Future damages. Burden of proof. Fault. Contractual liability. Bank. Burden of allegation. Assumption. Double conform as partial. Extension of the scope of the appeal. Subordinate resource. Double conform.
\nhttp:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jstj.nsf\/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814\/6b8da83bdcba6b368025836800356c11?OpenDocument<\/a><\/p>\n

Judgment of the Supreme Court of December 6, Case No. 3407 \/ 15.5T8BRG.G1.S2:<\/strong> Good faith. Preliminary negotiations. \u201cCulpa in<\/em> contrahendo\u201d<\/em>. Principle of trust. Negative contractual interest. Property damage. Contractual liability. Solidarity responsibility. Positive contractual interest. Quota transfer.
\nhttp:\/\/www.gde.mj.pt\/jstj.nsf\/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814\/95deb475940e22e88025835c003603a7<\/a><\/p>\n

Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Evora of December 6, Case no. 1866 \/ 14.2T8SLV-B.E1:<\/strong> Execution. Sale. Electronic auction. Award.
\nhttp:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jtre.nsf\/134973db04f39bf2802579bf005f080b\/25f9e20d91b5fab580258369004fb814?OpenDocument<\/a><\/p>\n

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

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

Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court No 2\/2018 of 07 December, Case No 1493\/17:<\/strong> Declares uniform case law for the following case: the limitation period for the right of the subrogated insurance company begins to run only after paid the damages suffered by his insured as a consequence of a traffic accident, since only after this payment can his right be exercised, pursuant to Article 498 (1) and (2) of the Civil Code.
\nhttps:\/\/data.dre.pt\/eli\/acsta\/2\/2018\/12\/07\/p\/dre\/pt\/html<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/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":5713,"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-5688","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\/5688","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=5688"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5688\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5713"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/e-legal-blawg.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}