17.7.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/5

(Case C-203/10)

2010/C 195/09

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deputy Director of the Appeals and Enforcement Management Directorate at the Central Administration of the National Revenue Agency

Respondent: Auto Nikolovi OOD

Questions referred

1.Does the term ‘second-hand goods’ set out in Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax also cover second-hand movable property which is not individualised (by mark, model, serial number, year of manufacture etc.) in such a way that it can be distinguished from goods of the same variety but is instead identified by generic features?

2.Does the phrase ‘as defined by the Member States’ contained in Article 311(1)(1) of Council Regulation 2006/112/EC grant Member States the possibility of defining the term ‘second-hand goods’ themselves, or must the definition of this term in the directive be reproduced strictly in national law?

3.Is the requirement, incorporated into national law, that second-goods be individually identified, consistent with the spirit and purpose of the definition of ‘second-hand goods’ in Community law?

4.Having regard to the aims set out in recital (51) of the preamble to Council Directive 2006/112/EC, can it be concluded that the phrase ‘where those goods have been supplied to him within the Community’ contained in Article 314(1) thereof also covers the importation of second-hand goods which the taxable dealer has imported himself?

5.If the arrangements under the margin scheme are also applicable to the supply of second-hand goods by a taxable dealer who has imported those goods himself, must the person from whom the taxable dealer has acquired those goods belong to one of the categories of person referred to in Article 314(a) to (d)?

6.Is the list of goods contained in Article 320(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC exhaustive?

7.Are the first subparagraph of Article 320(1) and Article 320(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national provision under which the taxable dealer’s right to deduct as input tax the VAT paid by him on the importation of second-hand goods arises and is exercised in the period during which those goods were supplied in connection with a subsequent taxable supply to which the taxable dealer applies the normal tax arrangements?

8.Do Articles 314(a) to (d), the first subparagraph of Article 320(1), and Article 320(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC have direct effect and can the national court rely on them directly in a case such as the present?

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

ECLI:EU:C:2010:195