This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015CN0120
Case C-120/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Košiciach (Slovakia) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Kovozber s.r.o. v Daňový úrad Košice
Case C-120/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Košiciach (Slovakia) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Kovozber s.r.o. v Daňový úrad Košice
Case C-120/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Košiciach (Slovakia) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Kovozber s.r.o. v Daňový úrad Košice
OJ C 213, 29.6.2015, p. 14–15
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
29.6.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 213/14 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Košiciach (Slovakia) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Kovozber s.r.o. v Daňový úrad Košice
(Case C-120/15)
(2015/C 213/22)
Language of the case: Slovak
Referring court
Krajský súd v Košiciach
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Kovozber s.r.o.
Defendant: Daňový úrad Košice
Questions referred
1. |
Must the first paragraph of Article 183 of Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended by Directive 2006/138/EC (1), be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in determining the conditions for refunding an excess deduction of value added tax, makes the award of default interest (on the delayed refund of value added tax) conditional on the expiry of a period of 10 days from completion of the tax inspection for ascertaining whether the claim to the refund of the excess deduction is justified? |
2. |
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is it for the national court, in the absence of national legislation on default interest after a period of 10 days from completion of a tax inspection, to determine by analogy, in its own discretion, appropriate legal rules on interest? |