Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2004/094/30

    Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 March 2004 in Case C-395/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen): Transport Service NV v Belgische Staat and Bea Cars BVBA

    HL C 94., 2004.4.17, p. 15–15 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)

    17.4.2004   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 94/15


    ORDER OF THE COURT

    (Fifth Chamber)

    of 3 March 2004

    in Case C-395/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen): Transport Service NV v Belgische Staat and Bea Cars BVBA (1)

    (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - First and Sixth VAT Directives - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Application of VAT to each production and distribution transaction - Recovery)

    (2004/C 94/30)

    Language of the case: Dutch

    In Case C-395/02; reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Transport Service NV and Belgische Staat, Bea Cars BVBA, third party — on the interpretation of the principle of the neutrality of the common system of value added tax — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 3 March 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

    The principle of the neutrality of the common system of value added tax does not preclude a Member State from recovering value added tax, after the event, from a taxable person which has wrongly invoiced a supply of goods as being exempt from that tax. It is irrelevant, in that regard, whether the value added tax on the later sale of the goods concerned to the end user has been paid to the public purse or not.


    (1)  OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.


    Top