Action in the case Nouwen v Commission. Transparency Regulation.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék in the case G Kft.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria in the case VÁM4ALL.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln in the case Finanzamt Siegburg.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen in the case Société Générale.

Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Prezydent Miasta Mielca. Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a piece of Member State legislation which exempts from property tax the land, buildings and structures forming part of railway infrastructure where that infrastructure is made available to rail carriers does not appear to be a measure which confers a selective advantage on the beneficiaries of that exemption.

Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Prisum Healthcare. The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, must be interpreted as meaning that a food preparation in liquid form containing iron in the form of ferrous sulphate, a vitamin complex, mineral salts, vegetable extracts, natural fruit extracts, other nutritive substances, honey, sugar and glucose syrup, which is consumed as such in doses of two teaspoons per day, marketed in 200 ml plastic bottles, intended for specific use in the formation of haemoglobin and red blood cells and has the function of a food supplement that contributes to the balance of health, the general well-being of the body and the normal functioning of the immune system, comes under heading 2202 of that nomenclature.

The European Commission has concluded that Finland's planned reform of the soft drinks tax does not involve State aid within the meaning of EU State aid rules. Finland notified to the Commission its intention to amend its soft drinks tax, seeking legal certainty that the amended tax does not involve State aid. A soft drink tax has been in place in Finland since 1940. After the latest amendments, the tax will continue to be imposed on soft drinks and the tax rate will be progressive depending ...

Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Tauritus. Article 70 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, where, at the time when goods are imported into the customs territory of the European Union, only their provisional price, which appears on a pro forma invoice, is known, with the sales contract stipulating that their final price will subsequently be fixed by a final invoice on the basis of certain predetermined objective factors the value of which is beyond the control of the parties and unknown to them at the time of acceptance of the customs declaration, such as an average of the exchange rate of certain currencies or of the price of certain products in a given period, the customs value of those goods must be determined by applying the transaction value method provided for in that article, by using, as a general rule, the simplified customs declaration procedure provided for in Articles 166 and 167 of that regulation.

Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Greentech. Articles 168 and 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of national legislation or a national administrative practice which does not allow a taxable person to obtain the deduction of the input VAT on a transaction which, following a tax audit, has been reclassified by the tax authorities as a transaction not subject to VAT, even though it appears impossible or excessively difficult for that taxable person to obtain, from the seller, reimbursement of the VAT thus unduly paid. However, those principles require that, in such a situation, that taxable person be able to apply directly to the tax authorities for reimbursement.

Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Cityland. The first subparagraph of Article 213(1) and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC and the principles of legal certainty and of proportionality must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, as interpreted by the tax authorities and the national courts, provides for the possibility for the competent tax authority to remove a taxable person from the VAT register on the ground of a failure to comply with VAT obligations on that taxable person’s part, without that tax authority analysing the nature of the infringements committed and the conduct of the taxable person at issue.

Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case EPPO. Article 19(1) TEU, Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which, in the course of an investigation, the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case concerned summons witnesses to appear is subject to review by the competent national court, pursuant to Article 42(1), where that decision is intended to produce binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the persons challenging that decision, such as the persons who are the subject of that investigation, by bringing about a distinct change in their legal situation. If that is the case, national law must guarantee for those persons the effective judicial review of that decision, at least as an incidental question, where applicable, by the criminal trial court. However, by application of the principle of equivalence, where national procedural provisions concerning similar domestic actions provide for the possibility of challenging an analogous decision directly, such a possibility must equally be afforded to those persons.

Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Commission v Malta. The Court holds that by establishing and operating the 2020 investor citizenship scheme, which amounts to the commercialisation of the grant of the nationality of a Member State and, by extension, of Union citizenship, Malta has infringed EU law.

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in the case Commission v Belgium.

Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona in the case Attal and Associés.