- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Joined Cases C-13/18 and C-126/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság, Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Sole-Mizo Zrt. (C-13/18), Dalmandi Mezőgazdasági Zrt. (C-126/18) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct input tax — Refund of excess VAT — Late refund — Calculation of interest — Rules for granting interest due because of the unavailability of an excess of deductible VAT withheld in breach of EU law and interest due because of the tax administration’s delay in paying a sum due — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0013
62018CA0013
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 230/2
(Joined Cases C-13/18 and C-126/18) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct input tax - Refund of excess VAT - Late refund - Calculation of interest - Rules for granting interest due because of the unavailability of an excess of deductible VAT withheld in breach of EU law and interest due because of the tax administration’s delay in paying a sum due - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)
(2020/C 230/02)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring courts
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Sole-Mizo Zrt. (C-13/18), Dalmandi Mezőgazdasági Zrt. (C-126/18)
Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
Operative part of the judgment
1.EU law and, in particular, the principles of fiscal effectiveness and fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as precluding the practice of a Member State of calculating interest on an excess of deductible value added tax (VAT) withheld by that Member State beyond a reasonable period in breach of EU law by applying a rate which corresponds to the basic rate of the national central bank, where, first, that rate is lower than that which a taxable person who is not a credit institution would have to pay to borrow a sum equal to that amount, and, second, interest on the excess VAT concerned accrues during a given reporting period, without application of interest to compensate the taxable person for the monetary depreciation caused by the passage of time following that reporting period until actual payment of that interest.
2.EU law and, in particular, the principles of effectiveness and equivalence must be interpreted as not precluding a practice of a Member State which subjects to a limitation period of five years claims for payment of interest on excess deductible value added tax withheld on account of the application of a national provision which was found to be contrary to EU law.
3.EU law and, in particular, the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding a practice of a Member State which, first, makes the payment of default interest due by reason of the tax administration’s failure to pay it within the prescribed period conditional upon the payment of a claim due in respect of the refund of an excess of value added tax withheld in breach of EU law to the lodging of a specific application, while in other cases such interest is granted automatically, and, second, applies such interest from the expiry of the 30 or 45 day time limit prescribed for the administration to process such an application and not from the date on which the excess was created.
(*) Language of the case: English.
OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.