EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018CA0133

Case C-133/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Refund of VAT — Directive 2008/9/EC — Article 20 — Request for additional information from the Member State of refund — Information to be provided within one month of the date on which the request reaches the person to whom it is addressed — Legal nature of time limit and consequences of failure to comply)

OJ C 220, 1.7.2019, p. 6–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

1.7.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/6


Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Case C-133/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Refund of VAT - Directive 2008/9/EC - Article 20 - Request for additional information from the Member State of refund - Information to be provided within one month of the date on which the request reaches the person to whom it is addressed - Legal nature of time limit and consequences of failure to comply)

(2019/C 220/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2008/9 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State must be interpreted as meaning that the time limit of one month laid down in that provision for providing the Member State of refund with the additional information requested by that Member State is not a limitation period whereby, if that period is exceeded or in the event of a failure to reply, the taxable person loses the possibility of regularising his refund application by producing, directly before the national court, additional information intended to establish the existence of his right to the refund of VAT.


(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.


Top