Išči

Sodna praksa Sodišča EU, lastni članki, spremembe davčne zakonodaje....

Izbrani prispeveki - novice o davkih pri nas in v EU - NEWS about TAXES

V družbi TAXIN d.o.o. (mag. Franc Derganc), partnerici Mreže Modro Poslovanje preučujemo davčno-pravna in druga poslovno-pravna vprašanja na podlagi študija sodne prakse Sodišča EU in slovenskih sodišč, preučevati moramo pravne predpise EU in domače pravne predpise ter spremljamo "potrebe" strank - podjetij, ki delujejo v Republiki Sloveniji ter na t.i. mednarodnih trgih. 


Mreža modro poslovanje, na dnevnem nivoju, spremlja spremembe iz spodaj navedenih baz podatkov.

    The partners (TAXIN d.o.o.) of the Wisdom Business Network study tax, legal and other business-legal issues based on the study of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU and Slovenian courts, they must study EU legal regulations and domestic legal regulations, and they must monitor the needs of customers - companies that operate in the Republic of Slovenia and operate also on the so-called international markets.

The Wisdom business network monitors changes from the databases listed below on a daily basis.


 

CELEX:62022TJ0622_INF: Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2023.#Viviane Van Oosterwijck v European Commission.#Case T-622/22.

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

CELEX:62018CJ0103_RES: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2020.#Domingo Sánchez Ruiz and Others v Comunidad de Madrid (Servicio Madrileño de Salud) and Consejería de Sanidad de la Comunidad de Madrid.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid.#References for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework Agreement, concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP regarding fixed-term work – Clause 5 – Concept of ‘successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships’ – Failure by the employer to respect the relevant legal deadline for definitively filling posts temporarily occupied by fixed-term workers – Implicit extension of the employment relationship from year to year – Occupation by a fixed-term worker of th

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

CELEX:62018CJ0542_RES: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2020.#Erik Simpson and HG v Council of the European Union and European Commission.#Review of the judgments of the General Court of the European Union in Simpson v Council (T‑646/16 P) and HG v Commission (T‑693/16 P) — Civil service — Composition of the panel of judges which delivered the judgments at first instance — Procedure for the appointment of a judge to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Tribunal established by law — Incidental review of legality — Effect on the unity and consistency of EU law.#Joined Cases C-542/18 RX-II and C-543/18 RX-II.

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

CELEX:62018CJ0558_RES: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2020.#Miasto Łowicz and Prokurator Generalny zastępowany przez Prokuraturę Krajową, formerly Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku v Skarb Państwa – Wojewoda Łódzki and Others.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi and Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie.#References for a preliminary ruling — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Rule of law — Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by Union law — Principle of judicial independence — Disciplinary regime applicable to national judges — Jurisdiction of the Court — Article 267 TFUE — Admissibility — Interpretation necessary for the referring court to be able to give judgment — Meaning.#Joined Cases C-558/18 and C-563/18.

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

CELEX:62018TJ0724_RES: Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 May 2020.#Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark AUREA BIOLABS — Earlier EU word mark AUREA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Correction of the Board of Appeal’s decision — Article 102 of Regulation 2017/1001.#Cases T-724/18 and T-184/19.

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

CELEX:62019TJ0084_RES: Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 May 2020.#Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for the EU figurative marks We IntelliGence the World, currencymachineassistant, robodealer, currencyassistant, tradingcurrencyassistant, CKPL, moneypersonalassistant, moneyassistant, currencypersonalassistant, CNTX Trading, AIdealer and CNTX — Earlier EU and UK figurative marks representing two intertwining circles or two overlapping circles — Suspension of proceedings — Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.#Cases T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T-98/19.

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

CELEX:62023TJ0010_INF: Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2023.#Light Tec Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Case T-10/23.

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

CELEX:62017CJ0715_RES: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2020.#European Commission v Republic of Poland and Others.#Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601 — Article 5(2) and 5(4) to 5(11) of each of those decisions — Provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece — Emergency situation characterised by a sudden influx of third-country nationals into certain Member States — Relocation of those nationals to other Member States — Relocation procedure — Obligation on the Member States to indicate at regular intervals, and at least every three months, the number of applicants for international protection who can be relocated swiftly to their territory — Consequent obligation

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

CELEX:62019CJ0329_RES: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 April 2020.#Condominio di Milano, via Meda v Eurothermo SpA.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Article 1(1) — Article 2(b) — Definition of ‘consumer’ — Commonhold of a building.#Case C-329/19.

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

CELEX:62019CO0791(01)_RES: Order of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 April 2020.#European Commission v Republic of Poland.#Interim relief – Article 279 TFEU – Application for interim measures – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Independence of the Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disciplinary Chamber) of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland).#Case C-791/19 R.

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

CELEX:62018CJ0228_RES: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2020.#Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101(1) TFEU — Card payment systems — Interbank agreement fixing the level of interchange fees — Agreement restricting competition ‘by object’ and ‘by effect’ — Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’.#Case C-228/18.

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

CELEX:62017CJ0370_RES: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 April 2020.#Caisse de retraite du personnel navigant professionnel de l'aéronautique civile (CRPNPAC) v Vueling Airlines SA v Vueling Airlines SA and Jean-Luc Poignant.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny and Cour de cassation.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Legislation applicable — Article 14(1)(a) — Posted workers — Article 14(2)(a)(i) — Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States and employed by a branch or a permanent representation that an undertaking has in the territory of a Member State other than that where it has its registered office — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

CELEX:62018CJ0507_RES: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 April 2020.#NH v Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI - Rete Lenford.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 3(1)(a), Article 8(1) and Article 9(2) — Prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation — Conditions for access to employment or to occupation — Concept — Public statements ruling out recruitment of homosexual persons — Article 11(1), Article 15(1) and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Defence of rights — Sanctions — Legal entity representing a collective interest — Standing to bring proceedings without acting in t

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

CELEX:62018CJ0717_RES: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2020.#Procureur-generaal v X.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 2(2) — Execution of a European arrest warrant — Removal of verification of the double criminality of the act — Conditions — Offence punishable by the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence for a maximum period of at least three years — Amendment of the criminal legislation of the issuing Member State between the date of the acts and the date of issue of the European arrest warrant — Version of the law to be taken into account in verifying the maximum sentence threshold of a

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

CELEX:62018TJ0574_RES: Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (Extracts).#Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. v European Commission.#Plant-protection products — Active substance oxasulfuron — Non-renewal of approval for placing on the market — Obligation to state reasons — Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Manifest error of assessment — Article 6(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and point 2.2 of Annex II to Regulation No 1107/2009 — Precautionary principle.#Case T-574/18.

August 24, 2024 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba in sklep I U 1121/2020-21

Upoštevaje, da je tožena stranka s sklepom z dne 3. 9. 2020 razveljavila svoj sklep z dne 3. 7. 2020 in odločila o tožničinem tožbenem zahtevku, to je o višini nagrade in povračilu stroškov za opravljene storitve v okviru BPP, izpodbijani sklep z dne 3. 7. 2020 za tožnico nima nikakršnih pravnih posledic in ne posega v njeno pravno korist. To pomeni, da s tožbo zoper navedeni sklep v tem upravnem sporu očitno ne more več izboljšati svojega položaja. Pri uporabi materialnih predpisov v času odločanja upravni organ veže načelo zakonitosti (prvi odstavek 6. člena ZUP), ki mu nalaga dolžnost upoštevati predpis veljaven v času odločanja. Tudi če tožena stranka priznanega zneska tožnici še vedno ni izplačala, to ne more vplivati na pravilnost in zakonitost njene dokončne odločitve. V tem primeru ima tožnica skladno s prvim odstavkom 290. člena ZUP12 na voljo podajo zahteve za izdajo sklepa o dovolitvi izvršbe.
August 23, 2024 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba II U 292/2021-17

Sodišče tako zaključuje, da se za pravilno opredelitev stroškov končnega odjemalca električne energije v smislu druge alineje 2. člena Uredbe 46/15, ki se upošteva pri izračunu elektro-intenzivnosti, upošteva tudi plačani DDV, ne glede na to, da ga sicer lahko zavezanec za DDV ob upoštevanju pogojev, določenih v 67. členu ZDDV-1, uveljavlja kot odbitek vstopnega davka ali ne.
August 23, 2024 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba II U 80/2021-13

V upravnem sporu Upravno sodišče RS ne sme odločati o utemeljenosti naloženih stroškov v kazenskem postopku, saj bi s tem posegalo v pristojnost kazenskega sodišča in hkrati v samo vsebino izvršilnega naslova, ki ga v davčni izvršbi ni več mogoče presojati.
August 23, 2024 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba II U 19/2022-21

Sodišče pa v zvezi z navedbami tožnika, da je sklep nezakonit, izpostavlja, da je za postopek davčne izvršbe bistvena izvršljivost izvršilnega naslova. Če je izvršilni naslov izvršljiv, obveznost pa neporavnana, ni ovire za to, da davčni organ z namenom izterjave neplačanih obveznosti izda sklep o davčni izvršbi in s tem začne postopek davčne izvršbe zoper dolžnika. Sodišče še izpostavlja, da je pravilno tudi stališče upravnega organa, da potrdilo o izvršljivosti, s katerim je opremljen zadevni izvršilni naslov, ki se izvršuje, predstavlja potrdilo v smislu 179. člena ZUP, zato se dejstva, ki so v njem potrjena, v skladu s prvim odstavkom 169. člena ZUP štejejo za dokazana.
August 23, 2024 0 Comments

UPRS Sodba II U 16/2020-15

Izpodbijan je sklep o davčni izvršbi, ki je izdan v skrajšanem ugotovitvenem postopku, saj se da stanje zadeve ugotoviti na podlagi uradnih podatkov, ki jih ima organ in zato ni treba posebej zaslišati stranke za zavarovanje njenih pravic oziroma pravnih koristi. Kadar se izterjuje druge denarne nedavčne obveznosti, je izvršilni naslov tudi plačilni nalog, opremljen s potrdilom o izvršljivosti.
August 23, 2024 0 Comments
RSS
First414415416417419421422423Last