CELEX:62021CA0469: Case C-469/21, CGCOF: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España (CGCOF) v Administracíon General del Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 — Repositories system containing information on safety features — Creation of an interface integrated into the national repository and managed by the public authorities — Obligation to use a specific application for certain medicinal products)

EUR LEX - RSS

CELEX:62021CA0284: Case C-284/21 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2023 — European Commission v Anthony Braesch and Others (Appeal — State aid — Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Restructuring aid — Banking sector — Preliminary examination stage — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Restructuring plan — Commitments given by the Member State concerned — Burden-sharing measures — Conversion of subordinated debts into equity — Bondholders — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Locus standi — Natural or legal person directly and individually concerned — Breach of the procedural rights of interested parties — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Article 108(2) TFEU — Concept of ‘parties concerned’ — Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 1(h) — Concept of ‘interested party’ — National measures taken into account by the European Commission — Inadmissibility of the action)

EUR LEX - RSS

CELEX:62021CA0205: Case C-205/21, Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Recording of biometric and genetic data by the police): Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against V.S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive (EU) 2016/680 — Article 4(1)(a) to (c) — Principles relating to processing of personal data — Purpose limitation — Data minimisation — Article 6(a) — Clear distinction between personal data of different categories of data subjects — Article 8 — Lawfulness of processing — Article 10 — Transposition — Processing of biometric data and genetic data — Concept of ‘processing authorised by Member State law’ — Concept of ‘strictly necessary’ — Discretion — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7, 8, 47, 48 and 52 — Right to effective judicial protection — Presumption of innocence — Limitation — Intentional criminal offence subject to public prosecution — Accused persons — Collection of photographic and dactyloscopic data in order for them to be entered in a record and taking of a biological sample for the purpose of creating a DNA profile — Procedure for enforcement of collection — Systematic nature of the collection)

EUR LEX - RSS

CELEX:62021CA0403: Case C-403/21, NV Construct: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiliul Naţional de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor — Romania) — SC NV Construct SRL v Județul Timiș (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ — Criteria — Independence and compulsory nature of the jurisdiction of the national body concerned — Stability of the members of that body — Directive 2014/24/EU — Public procurement procedures — Article 58 — Selection criteria — Possibility of including, amongst those criteria, obligations under special laws applicable to the activities connected with the contract in question and not set out as a criterion for selection in the procurement documents — Article 63(1) — Tenderer relying on the capacities of another entity in order to meet the requirements of the contracting authority — Not possible to require recourse to subcontracting)

EUR LEX - RSS

CELEX:62021CA0158: Case C-158/21, Puig Gordi and Others: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against Lluís Puig Gordi and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Jurisdiction of the issuing judicial authority — Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right of access to a tribunal previously established by law — Possibility of issuing a new European arrest warrant relating to the same person)

EUR LEX - RSS

CELEX:62022CJ0009: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 March 2023.#NJ and OZ v An Bord Pleanála and Others.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Irlande).#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Article 2(a) – Concept of ‘plans and programmes’ – Article 3(2)(a) – Environmental assessment – Non-statutory act prepared by a municipal council and a developer – Directive 2011/92/EU – Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment – Article 3(1) – Obligation to identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect effects of a project – Binding ministerial guidelines on building height.#Case C-9/22.

EUR LEX - RSS

UPRS Sodba I U 1499/2021-79

Novice sodbe slovenskih sodišč DAVKI RSS
Tretji osebi, ki je v zahtevi prosilke in v izreku izpodbijane odločbe poimensko navedena, pred izdajo izpodbijane odločbe v upravnem postopku ne na prvi in tudi ne na drugi stopnji upravnega odločanja ni bila dana možnost, da bi se skladno z določili 9. člena ZUP in 146. člena ZUP v povezavi z 22. členom Ustave izjavila o dejstvih in okoliščinah, ki so pomembne za odločitev. Posledično je tožena stranka (vsaj) preuranjeno zaključila, da je treba pritožbi ugoditi in prvostopenjsko odločbo odpraviti, pri čemer je ostalo nepojasnjeno njeno stališče (cit): “da mora organ zavezanec omogočiti dostop do dokumentov, ki se nahajajo v informatiziranih podatkovnih zbirkah, čeprav priklic iz zbirke, tehnično gledano, vedno pomeni nastanek (ustvarjanje) novega dokumenta”, kar onemogoča preizkus pravilnosti in zakonitosti izpodbijane odločbe.

UPRS Sklep in sodba I U 1827/2018-14

Novice sodbe slovenskih sodišč DAVKI RSS
Tožniku v postopku pred izdajo izpodbijanega sklepa ni bila izdana odmerna odločba niti ni imel možnosti kakršnekoli prijave v postopku na prvi stopnji. Izpodbijana odločitev sloni na pravni podlagi druge povedi prvega odstavka 148. člena ZDavP-2, za katero je Ustavno sodišče RS ugotovilo, da je neustavna in kot način izvršitve določilo, da lahko davčni organ izvršbo zoper poroka v smislu druge povedi prvega odstvka 148. člena ZDavP-2 opravi le, če pred tem izda odmerno odločbo, s katero ugotovi, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za poroštvo, pred njeno izdajo pa poroku zagotovi pravico do izjave. Glede na odločbo Ustavnega sodišča RS U-I-517/18-10 v obravnavani zadevi ni pravne podlage za izdajo izpodbijanega sklepa o davčni izvršbi tožniku.

UPRS Sodba I U 892/2020-9

Novice sodbe slovenskih sodišč DAVKI RSS
Na podlagi 55. člena ZDDPO-2 lahko zavezanec po tem zakonu uveljavlja davčno olajšavo za vlaganja v RR v višini 100 % zneska, ki predstavlja vlaganja v raziskave in razvoj. Pravilnik o uveljavljanju davčnih olajšav za vlaganja v raziskave in razvoj pa podrobneje navaja vrsto in vsebino vlaganj, ki štejejo za vlaganja v RR, vrsto stroškov, ki se lahko vključijo v znesek vlaganj v RR ter dodatne opredelitve kriterijev in meril pa presojo vlaganj v RR. Osnovno merilo za opredelitev, da gre za RR je, da mora biti pri RR prisoten pomemben element novosti in razreševanje znanstvene oz. tehnološke nejasnosti. Iz dejanskega stanja, navedenega v obrazložitvi izpodbijane odločbe, pa ne izhaja, da bi tožnik predhodno naveden pogoj tudi izkazal.