This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CN0534
Case C-534/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 20 October 2016 — Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic v BB construct s.r.o.
Case C-534/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 20 October 2016 — Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic v BB construct s.r.o.
Case C-534/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 20 October 2016 — Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic v BB construct s.r.o.
OJ C 22, 23.1.2017, p. 6–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
23.1.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 22/6 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 20 October 2016 — Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic v BB construct s.r.o.
(Case C-534/16)
(2017/C 022/09)
Language of the case: Slovak
Referring court
Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic
Respondent: BB construct s.r.o.
Questions referred
|
1. |
Is it possible to interpret as in accordance with the objective of Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, that is, the prevention of VAT evasion, an approach on the part of a national body which considers the fact that the current director of a legal person was also the director of another legal person which has outstanding tax liabilities to be a ground under national law for requiring payment of a tax deposit of up to the value of EUR 500 000? |
|
2. |
May it be held that the abovementioned tax deposit, given its amount, which may be up to the value of EUR 500 000 as in the present case, is consistent with the freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], does not directly force the taxable person to declare bankruptcy, does not constitute discrimination under Article 21(1) [of the Charter] and does not constitute a breach, in the area of the levying of VAT, of the ne bis in idem principle or of the prohibition on retroactivity under Article 49(1) and (3) of the Charter? |