Action in the case Commission v Germany.

Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Modexel. Article 183, first paragraph, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that, where a taxable person ceases economic activity, that person may not carry excess VAT, declared at the time of that cessation of activity, forward to a following period and may recover that amount only by requesting a refund within 12 months from the date on which that activity ceased, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed.

The Constitutional Court of Belgium (Grondwettelijke Hof) is referring a preliminary question to the Court of Justice EU regarding the validity of one of the possible top-up taxes (the 'UTPR top-up tax') through which a minimum tax is imposed on groups of multinational enterprises and large domestic groups.

Opinion of Advocate General Emiliou in the case Chefquet.

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in the case Vaniz.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo in the case Swedish Match.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf in the case Brenntag.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny in the case Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Łodzi.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in the case Segelbootwartung. Does a means of transport enter the economic network of the European Union if it is not used as a means of transport in a Member State, but a service (maintenance and repair works) is performed on it?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie in the case A&P Deco.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof in the case Peckeger.

Action in the case Commission v Greece.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad in the case Lidl Bulgaria.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad in the case Gidzhinov

Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Beach and bar management. Article 325 TFEU, Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the imposition of a financial penalty on a taxable person on the ground that he or she has not issued fiscal cash register receipts relating to sales made where that offence has already given rise to the imposition of a coercive administrative measure to seal the business premises in which that offence was committed and prohibiting access thereto. Article 273 of Directive 2006/112 and Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for, as an administrative penalty, a financial measure of a high amount without the court hearing a challenge to that measure having the procedural possibility of imposing an amount less than that provided for by that legislation or another more lenient type of penalty.