14.1.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/8

1.

In which cases is it to be assumed that there is a theft of property duly proved or confirmed within the meaning of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 (1), and is it necessary in that regard that the identity of the perpetrator has been established and that that person has already been finally convicted?

2.

Depending on the answer to the first question: does the expression ‘theft of property duly proved or confirmed’ within the meaning of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 cover a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which a pre-litigation procedure for theft was initiated against person or persons unknown, a fact that is not disputed by the revenue collection department and on the basis of which it has been assumed that there is a shortfall?

3.

In the light of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112, are national legal provisions such as those laid down in Articles 79(3) and 80(2) of the Law on VAT and a tax practice such as that adopted in the main proceedings permissible, under which the input tax deduction made on the acquisition of goods which are subsequently stolen must be adjusted, if it is assumed that the State has not made use of the power afforded to it to provide expressly for adjustments to the input tax deducted in the case of theft?