This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CN0504
Case C-504/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic lodged on 21 October 2010 — TANOARCH s.r.o. v Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic
Case C-504/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic lodged on 21 October 2010 — TANOARCH s.r.o. v Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic
Case C-504/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic lodged on 21 October 2010 — TANOARCH s.r.o. v Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic
OJ C 46, 12.2.2011, p. 2–2
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
12.2.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 46/2 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic lodged on 21 October 2010 — TANOARCH s.r.o. v Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic
(Case C-504/10)
2011/C 46/02
Language of the case: Slovak
Referring court
The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: TANOARCH s.r.o.
Defendant: Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic
Questions referred
1. |
Does Article 2(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax permit a provision whereby a taxpayer may deduct, from his own tax liability, tax on goods and services which he uses for the purposes of his business as a taxpayer, if that tax has been charged to him by another inland taxpayer, on goods and services supplied or to be supplied, in circumstances where the plaintiff, in his capacity as co-applicant in respect of an invention on which a patent has yet to be granted, already owns, as a matter of law, the right independently to use the invention which is the subject-matter of the patent as a whole? |
2. |
Does the Sixth Directive permit the interpretation that a taxpayer’s existing legal right independently to use a patent results in the legal impossibility of using a service for supplies of goods and services as a taxpayer, and that this results in the legal consumption of the service acquired? |
3. |
Is the abuse of a taxpayer’s right to deduct input VAT under the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 21 February 2006, Case C-255/02 Halifax and Others, affected by the fact that, regarding the substance of the matter, the invention has not yet been registered as a patent and only parts thereof are operated? |