Case C‑492/13

Traum EOOD

v

Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 138(1) — Exemptions for intra-Community transactions — Purchaser not registered for VAT purposes — Whether the vendor is required to establish the authenticity of the signature of the purchaser or his representative — Principles of proportionality, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations — Direct effect’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 9 October 2014

1. 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)

2. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemption in respect of an intra-Community supply of goods — Seller refused entitlement to the exemption because the purchaser is not registered for value added tax purposes — Evidentiary requirements — Additional evidentiary requirements formulated in the course of a subsequent tax inspection — Infringement of the principles of legal certainty and proportionality

   (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 131, 138(1) and 139(1), second para.)

3. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Authenticity of the documents submitted in support of a request for exemption from value added tax — Refusal of entitlement to the right of exemption — Good faith — Diligence — Verification a matter for the national court

   (Council Directive 2006/112)

4. Acts of the institutions — Directives — Direct effect

   (Art. 288, third para., TFEU; Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 138(1))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 19)

2.  Articles 138(1) and 139(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Directive 2010/88 must be interpreted as precluding the tax authorities of a Member State from refusing to grant an exemption from value added tax in respect of an intra-Community supply of goods on the ground that the purchaser was not registered for value added tax purposes in another Member State and the supplier has proven neither the authenticity of the signature on the documents submitted in support of its declaration in respect of a supply it claims to be exempt from value added tax nor that the person who signed those documents on behalf of the purchaser had the authority to represent the purchaser, where the evidence establishing entitlement to the exemption submitted by the supplier in support of its declaration is consistent with the list of documents to be submitted to those authorities under national law and has been accepted by them, initially, as supporting evidence.

   It is contrary to the principle of legal certainty for the competent tax authorities to require, in such circumstances, additional evidence.

   Possible irregularities affecting the register of taxpayers cannot deprive a trader who has relied on the information entered in that register of the right of exemption from value added tax to which it is entitled. A competent tax authority which has, initially, agreed and accepted that a purchaser was subject to value added tax in another Member State in accordance with a condition set out in national law, but which, in the course of a subsequent inspection, finds that that condition was not satisfied and therefore refuses entitlement to the exemption from value added tax, infringes the principles of legal certainty and proportionality.

   (see paras 33-36, 43, operative part 1)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 41)

4.  Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Directive 2010/88, must be interpreted as having direct effect, so that it may be relied upon by taxable persons before national courts against the State in order to obtain an exemption from value added tax in respect of an intra-Community supply of goods.

   (see para. 48, operative part 2)

Case C‑492/13

Traum EOOD

v

Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 138(1) — Exemptions for intra-Community transactions — Purchaser not registered for VAT purposes — Whether the vendor is required to establish the authenticity of the signature of the purchaser or his representative — Principles of proportionality, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations — Direct effect’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 9 October 2014

1. 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)

2. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemption in respect of an intra-Community supply of goods — Seller refused entitlement to the exemption because the purchaser is not registered for value added tax purposes — Evidentiary requirements — Additional evidentiary requirements formulated in the course of a subsequent tax inspection — Infringement of the principles of legal certainty and proportionality

   (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 131, 138(1) and 139(1), second para.)

3. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Authenticity of the documents submitted in support of a request for exemption from value added tax — Refusal of entitlement to the right of exemption — Good faith — Diligence — Verification a matter for the national court

   (Council Directive 2006/112)

4. Acts of the institutions — Directives — Direct effect

   (Art. 288, third para., TFEU; Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 138(1))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 19)

2.  Articles 138(1) and 139(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Directive 2010/88 must be interpreted as precluding the tax authorities of a Member State from refusing to grant an exemption from value added tax in respect of an intra-Community supply of goods on the ground that the purchaser was not registered for value added tax purposes in another Member State and the supplier has proven neither the authenticity of the signature on the documents submitted in support of its declaration in respect of a supply it claims to be exempt from value added tax nor that the person who signed those documents on behalf of the purchaser had the authority to represent the purchaser, where the evidence establishing entitlement to the exemption submitted by the supplier in support of its declaration is consistent with the list of documents to be submitted to those authorities under national law and has been accepted by them, initially, as supporting evidence.

   It is contrary to the principle of legal certainty for the competent tax authorities to require, in such circumstances, additional evidence.

   Possible irregularities affecting the register of taxpayers cannot deprive a trader who has relied on the information entered in that register of the right of exemption from value added tax to which it is entitled. A competent tax authority which has, initially, agreed and accepted that a purchaser was subject to value added tax in another Member State in accordance with a condition set out in national law, but which, in the course of a subsequent inspection, finds that that condition was not satisfied and therefore refuses entitlement to the exemption from value added tax, infringes the principles of legal certainty and proportionality.

   (see paras 33-36, 43, operative part 1)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 41)

4.  Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Directive 2010/88, must be interpreted as having direct effect, so that it may be relied upon by taxable persons before national courts against the State in order to obtain an exemption from value added tax in respect of an intra-Community supply of goods.

   (see para. 48, operative part 2)