EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-201/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Mydibel S.A. v État belge

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CN0201

62018CN0201

March 19, 2018
With Google you find a lot.
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

28.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/15

(Case C-201/18)

(2018/C 182/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mydibel S.A.

Respondent: État belge

Question referred

Must Articles 14, 15, 168, 184, 185, 187 and 188 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) be interpreted and applied as meaning that there is, or is not, a revision/adjustment of VAT on an investment good comprising immovable property which had initially been deducted correctly, in the case where that immovable property acquired as a capital good was the subject of a ‘sale and lease back’ transaction, given that:

the ‘sale and lease back’ is created by the combined and simultaneous granting of a right of emphyteusis (being a temporary right in rem) by the taxable person to two financial institutions and by a leasing by those two institutions to the taxable person;

that ‘sale and lease back’ is a purely financial transaction designed to increase the liquidity of the taxable person;

the ‘sale and lease back’ transaction was not subject to VAT;

the investment property remained in the possession of the taxable person and was used for the taxable activity of the taxable person in a continuous and sustainable manner, both before and after the transaction?

Does an interpretation and application of the abovementioned provisions leading to a revision/adjustment of the VAT initially deducted comply with the principle of neutrality of VAT and/or with the principle of equal treatment??

*

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia