Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013CN0313

Case C-313/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală v Cătălin Ienciu

OJ C 226, 3.8.2013, p. 7–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 226, 3.8.2013, p. 3–3 (HR)

3.8.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/7


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală v Cătălin Ienciu

(Case C-313/13)

(2013/C 226/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală

Defendant: Cătălin Ienciu

Question referred

If a vendor has been reclassified as a taxable person for VAT purposes and the consideration for (price of) the supply of the immovable property has been determined by the parties, without any reference to VAT, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount is:

(a)

the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property determined by the parties, less the rate of VAT, or

(b)

the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property agreed by the parties?


(1)  Council Directive of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


Top