Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62021CA0235

    Case C-235/21: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Raiffeisen Leasing, trgovina in leasing d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 203 — Sale-and-lease back agreement — Persons liable for payment of VAT — Possibility of treating a written contractual agreement as an invoice)

    OJ C 432, 14.11.2022, p. 5–6 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    14.11.2022   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 432/5


    Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Raiffeisen Leasing, trgovina in leasing d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija

    (Case C-235/21) (1)

    (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 203 - Sale-and-lease back agreement - Persons liable for payment of VAT - Possibility of treating a written contractual agreement as an invoice)

    (2022/C 432/06)

    Language of the case: Slovenian

    Referring court

    Vrhovno sodišče

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Raiffeisen Leasing, trgovina in leasing d.o.o.

    Defendant: Republika Slovenija

    Operative part of the judgment

    Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax,

    must be interpreted as meaning that:

    a contractual sale-and-lease back agreement, the conclusion of which was not followed by the issue of an invoice by the parties, may be regarded as an invoice, within the meaning of that provision, where that contractual agreement contains all the information necessary for the tax authorities of a Member State to be able to establish whether the substantive conditions for the right to deduct value added tax are satisfied in the case, which is for the referring court to ascertain.


    (1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.


    Top