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 62017CN0081

Case C-81/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (Romania) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Zabrus Siret SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava

OJ C 161, 22.5.2017, p. 8–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.5.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/8


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava (Romania) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Zabrus Siret SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava

(Case C-81/17)

(2017/C 161/11)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Zabrus Siret SRL

Respondent: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Suceava

Questions referred

1.

Does Directive 2006/112/EC, (1) together with the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, preclude, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, an administrative practice and/or an interpretation of the provisions of national legislation precluding the assessment and recognition of the right to reimbursement of VAT resulting from adjustments in respect of transactions carried out during a period, preceding the most recent inspection period, which has already been the subject of a tax inspection and in which the tax authorities did not find any anomalies that were such as to alter the taxable amount for VAT, notwithstanding the fact that those provisions may be interpreted as meaning that the tax authorities may review a period which has previously been the subject of a tax inspection in the light of additional data and information obtained subsequently as a result of cooperation between State authorities and institutions?

2.

Must Directive 2006/112/EC and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, national rules of a legislative nature which deny the possibility of correcting substantive errors in VAT returns for tax periods which have already been the subject of a tax inspection, the only exception being where the correction is made on the basis of a notice communicated by the tax inspectorate at the time of the previous inspection?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


Top