1. 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 26, 27)

2. 

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Refusal on the ground that the supplies of goods had not actually been carried out, as a result of fraud and irregularities — Not permissible — Limits — Conditions — Addressee of the invoice who knew or should have known of the fraud — Verification a matter for the national court — Information needed for an assessment (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 14(1), 167 and 168(a)) (see paras 37-40, 42-49, 55, operative part 1, 2)

3. 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Jurisdiction of the national court — Establishing and assessing the facts of the dispute (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 51)

1. 

Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding the tax authorities of a Member State from finding that a supply of goods has not taken place, with the result that the value added tax paid at the time of acquiring those goods cannot be deducted by the buyer, on the ground that that person has not received the goods which it has purchased but has sent them directly to a third party to whom it has resold them, or on the ground that the buyer’s direct supplier has not received the goods which it has purchased but has sent them directly to that buyer.

2. 

Neither the fact that a taxable person’s upstream suppliers in the supply chain have not cooperated with the tax authorities nor the fact that there has been no transhipment of the goods concerned constitutes, in itself, sufficient objective evidence for concluding that that taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as its basis for the right to deduct value added tax was connected with tax fraud. Nevertheless, those two facts constitute objective evidence which may be taken into account, in the context of an overall assessment of all the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to determine whether the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as its basis for the right to deduct was connected with tax fraud.

1. 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 26, 27)

2. 

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Refusal on the ground that the supplies of goods had not actually been carried out, as a result of fraud and irregularities — Not permissible — Limits — Conditions — Addressee of the invoice who knew or should have known of the fraud — Verification a matter for the national court — Information needed for an assessment (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 14(1), 167 and 168(a)) (see paras 37-40, 42-49, 55, operative part 1, 2)

3. 

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Jurisdiction of the national court — Establishing and assessing the facts of the dispute (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 51)

1. 

Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding the tax authorities of a Member State from finding that a supply of goods has not taken place, with the result that the value added tax paid at the time of acquiring those goods cannot be deducted by the buyer, on the ground that that person has not received the goods which it has purchased but has sent them directly to a third party to whom it has resold them, or on the ground that the buyer’s direct supplier has not received the goods which it has purchased but has sent them directly to that buyer.

2. 

Neither the fact that a taxable person’s upstream suppliers in the supply chain have not cooperated with the tax authorities nor the fact that there has been no transhipment of the goods concerned constitutes, in itself, sufficient objective evidence for concluding that that taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as its basis for the right to deduct value added tax was connected with tax fraud. Nevertheless, those two facts constitute objective evidence which may be taken into account, in the context of an overall assessment of all the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to determine whether the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as its basis for the right to deduct was connected with tax fraud.