- 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-55/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 1 February 2016 — Evo Bus GmbH v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Argeș
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CN0055
62016CN0055
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
25.4.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 145/19
(Case C-55/16)
(2016/C 145/24)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Evo Bus GmbH
Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Argeș
Question referred
Are the Eighth Directive (79/1072/EEC) (1) and the principle of fiscal neutrality to be interpreted as precluding/having precluded the legislation of a Member State which regulates/regulated, in the light of the principle that there should be certainty in tax matters, the conditions for eligibility for reimbursement of value added tax, such as, in the present case, the condition requiring proof of payment of the tax by suppliers?
(1) Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11).