Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016CN0132

Case C-132/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 March 2016 — Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia v Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments EOOD

OJ C 175, 17.5.2016, p. 12–12 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

17.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/12


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 March 2016 — Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia v Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments EOOD

(Case C-132/16)

(2016/C 175/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’, Sofia

Defendant: Iberdrola Inmobiliaria Real Estate Investments EOOD

Questions referred

1.

Do Article 26(1)(b), Article 168(a) and Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax preclude a provision of national law such as Article 70(1)(2) of the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax), which restricts the right to deduct input VAT in respect of the supply of services relating to construction or improvement of a property owned by a third party, which are used both by the recipient of the supply and by the third party, for the sole reason that the third party enjoys the result of those services free of charge, without taking into account the fact that the services are to be used in the context of the economic activity of the taxable recipient?

2.

Do Article 26(1)(b), Article 168(a) and Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax preclude a tax practice consisting of refusing to recognise the right to deduct the input VAT in respect of the supply of services, where the expenditure corresponding to those services is counted among the taxable person’s general costs, on the ground that it was incurred in order to construct or improve a property owned by another person, without taking into account the fact that that property is also to be used by the recipient of the supply of building services in the context of its economic activity?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


Top