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-582/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 5 November 2020 — SC Cridar Cons SRL v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0582

62020CN0582

November 5, 2020
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

15.2.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/18

(Case C-582/20)

(2021/C 53/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Cridar Cons SRL

Respondents: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca

Questions referred

1.Are Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which the tax authorities, after issuing a notice of assessment refusing to grant a right to deduct input VAT, are permitted to suspend the examination of an administrative complaint pending the outcome of criminal proceedings that could provide additional objective evidence of the taxable person’s involvement in tax fraud?

2.Would the answer given by the Court of Justice of the European Union to the first question be different if, during the period for which examination of the administrative complaint is suspended, the taxable person benefits from provisional measures which suspend the effects of the refusal of the right to deduct VAT?

(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