Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (9.10.2014)

-JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (THIRD CHAMBER) 9 October 2014, in Case C‑376/14 PPU (C): (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Wrongful retention — Habitual residence of the child)

Fallo del Tribunal:

"1. Articles 2(11) and 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that where the removal of a child has taken place in accordance with a judgment which was provisionally enforceable and which was thereafter overturned by a judgment which fixed the residence of the child at the home of the parent living in the Member State of origin, the court of the Member State to which the child was removed, seised of an application for the return of the child, must determine, by undertaking an assessment of all the circumstances of fact specific to the individual case, whether the child was still habitually resident in the Member State of origin immediately before the alleged wrongful retention. As part of that assessment, it is important that account be taken of the fact that the judgment authorising the removal could be provisionally enforced and that an appeal had been brought against it.

2. Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where the removal of a child has taken place in accordance with a court judgment which was provisionally enforceable and which was thereafter overturned by a court judgment fixing the child’s residence at the home of the parent living in the Member State of origin, the failure to return the child to that Member State following the latter judgment is wrongful and Article 11 of the Regulation is applicable if it is held that the child was still habitually resident in that Member State immediately before the retention. If it is held, conversely, that the child was at that time no longer habitually resident in the Member State of origin, a decision dismissing the application for return based on that provision is without prejudice to the application of the rules established in Chapter III of the Regulation relating to the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a Member State."

-SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL DE JUSTICIA (Sala Primera) de 9 de octubre de 2014, en el Asunto C‑326/12 (van Caster y van Caster): «Procedimiento prejudicial — Libre circulación de capitales — Artículo 63 TFUE — Tributación de los rendimientos procedentes de fondos de inversión — Obligaciones de comunicación y de publicación de determinada información por un fondo de inversión — Tributación a tanto alzado de los rendimientos procedentes de fondos de inversión que no cumplen con las obligaciones de comunicación y de publicación»

Fallo del Tribunal: "El artículo 63 TFUE debe interpretarse en el sentido de que se opone a una normativa nacional como la controvertida en el litigio principal, que establece que la inobservancia por un fondo de inversión no residente de las obligaciones de comunicación y de publicación de determinada información previstas por dicha normativa, aplicables indistintamente a los fondos residentes y no residentes, conlleva la tributación a tanto alzado de los rendimientos que el contribuyente obtiene de ese fondo de inversión, en la medida en que la citada normativa no permite a tal contribuyente aportar pruebas o información que puedan demostrar la cuantía efectiva de esos rendimientos."