This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CA0441
Case C-441/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație şi Justiție — Romania) — SMS group GmbH v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC — Directive 2006/112/EC — Taxable person residing in another Member State — Refund of VAT charged on imported goods — Conditions — Objective elements confirming the intention of the taxable person to use the imported goods in the course of his economic activities — Serious risk of non-completion of the transaction that justified the importation)
Case C-441/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație şi Justiție — Romania) — SMS group GmbH v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC — Directive 2006/112/EC — Taxable person residing in another Member State — Refund of VAT charged on imported goods — Conditions — Objective elements confirming the intention of the taxable person to use the imported goods in the course of his economic activities — Serious risk of non-completion of the transaction that justified the importation)
Case C-441/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație şi Justiție — Romania) — SMS group GmbH v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC — Directive 2006/112/EC — Taxable person residing in another Member State — Refund of VAT charged on imported goods — Conditions — Objective elements confirming the intention of the taxable person to use the imported goods in the course of his economic activities — Serious risk of non-completion of the transaction that justified the importation)
OJ C 392, 20.11.2017, p. 10–11
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
20.11.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 392/10 |
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație şi Justiție — Romania) — SMS group GmbH v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București
(Case C-441/16) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC - Directive 2006/112/EC - Taxable person residing in another Member State - Refund of VAT charged on imported goods - Conditions - Objective elements confirming the intention of the taxable person to use the imported goods in the course of his economic activities - Serious risk of non-completion of the transaction that justified the importation))
(2017/C 392/14)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Înalta Curte de Casație şi Justiție
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: SMS group GmbH
Defendant: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București
Operative part of the judgment
Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, read in conjunction with Article 170 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding a refusal by a Member State to refund the value added tax paid on the importation of goods to a taxable person who is not established on its territory in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings where, at the time of importation, the performance of the contract in connection with which the taxable person purchased and imported those goods was suspended, the transaction for which they were intended to be used was in the end not carried out, and the taxable person did not provide proof of their subsequent movements.