- 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
Case C-472/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Alstom Power Hydro v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 18(4) — National legislation laying down a limitation period of three years for the refund of excess VAT)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008CA0472
62008CA0472
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
13.3.2010
Official Journal of the European Union
C 63/14
(Case C-472/08) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 18(4) - National legislation laying down a limitation period of three years for the refund of excess VAT)
2010/C 63/21
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Alstom Power Hydro
Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — National legislation providing for a period of three years for the introduction of applications for the refund of excess tax.
Operative part of the judgment
Article 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down a limitation period of three years in which to make an application for the refund of excess value added tax collected by, though not due to, the tax authority.
*
Language of the case: Latvian.
ECLI:EU:C:2010:63