25.1.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/10

1.

Are the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its judgment in Joined Cases C-95/07 and C-96/07 [Ecotrade spa v Agenzia delle Entrate [2008] ECR I-3457] — to the effect that Article 18(1)(d) and Article 22 of Sixth Directive 77/388, (1) as amended by Directive 91/680/EEC (2) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, preclude a practice whereby declarations are reassessed and value added tax recovered which penalises a failure to comply with, first, the formal requirements laid down by national law in implementation of Article 18(1)(d) and, second, obligations relating to accounts and tax returns under Article 22(2) and (4) respectively, by denying the right to deduct where the reverse charge procedure applies — also applicable in the case of total failure to comply with the obligations laid down by national law where there is, however, no doubt as to the status of a person as a person liable for payment of the tax or that person’s right to deduct?

2.

Do the expressions ‘obblighi sostanziali’, ‘substantive requirements’ and ‘exigences de fond’ used by the CJEU in the various language versions of the judgment delivered on 8 May 2008 in Joined Cases C-95/07 and C-96/07 refer, with regard to situations entailing reverse charge VAT, to the requirement to pay VAT or the requirement of assumption of liability for the tax, or to the existence of substantive conditions which justify the imposition of VAT on the taxable person and govern the right to deduct, which is intended to safeguard the principle of VAT neutrality and of a single European system — for example, the presumption that there is an inherent connection between the goods purchased and the business carried on (‘inerenza’), whether VAT may be charged and whether it is totally deductible?