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 62016CN0533

Case C-533/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 20 October 2016 — Volkswagen AG v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

OJ C 22, 23.1.2017, p. 5–6 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.1.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/5


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 20 October 2016 — Volkswagen AG v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-533/16)

(2017/C 022/08)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Volkswagen AG

Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

Questions referred

1.

Must Directive 2008/9 (1) and the right to a tax refund be interpreted to the effect that the cumulative satisfaction of two conditions is required to exercise the right to a VAT refund, namely:

(i)

the supply of the goods or service and

(ii)

the inclusion of VAT on the invoice by the supplier?

In other words, is it possible for a taxable person who has not been charged VAT on an invoice to claim a tax refund?

2.

Is it in accordance with the principle of proportionality or VAT fiscal neutrality for the time-limit for the tax refund to be calculated from a point at which not all the substantive law conditions required to exercise the right to a tax refund were satisfied?

3.

Are Articles 167 and 178(a) of the VAT Directive, in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, to be interpreted to the effect that, in circumstances such as those of the present case, and assuming that the other substantive law and procedural law conditions required to claim a right to a tax deduction are satisfied, they preclude an approach by the tax authorities which refuses the taxable person the right, claimed within the time-limit under Directive 2008/9, to be refunded VAT which was charged to it by the supplier on the invoice and removed by the supplier before the expiry of the limitation period for relying upon the right under national law?

4.

Did the Slovak tax authorities, in the light of the principle of neutrality and the principle of proportionality, which are the fundamental principles of the common system of VAT, exceed the limits of what was necessary for achieving the objective defined by the VAT Directive when they refused the taxable person the right to a refund of the deducted tax on the ground that the limitation period laid down by national law for claiming a tax refund had expired, even though the taxable person could not exercise its right to a tax refund within that period and even though the tax was correctly collected and the risk of tax evasion or non-payment of the tax had been completely excluded?

5.

May the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of the national legislation under which, for the purposes of observance of the time-limit for claiming a tax refund, the time of the decision of the administrative authority on the tax refund is decisive, and not the time at which the tax refund is claimed by the taxable person?


(1)  Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 23).


Top