Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/6

(Case C-332/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - Third subparagraph of Article 17(5) - Field of application - Deduction of input tax - Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions (mixed-use goods and services) - Determination of the assignation of goods and services purchased for the construction, use, conservation and maintenance of a building that serves to carry out, in part, transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and, in part, transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible - Amendment of the national legislation laying down the method of calculating the deductible proportion - Article 20 - Adjustment of deductions - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations))

(2016/C 296/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolfgang und Dr. Wilfried Rey Grundstücksgemeinschaft GbR

Defendant: Finanzamt Krefeld

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 17(5) 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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a building is used in order to carry out certain output transactions in respect of which value added tax is deductible and others in respect of which it is not, the Member States are not required to prescribe that the input goods and services used for the construction, acquisition, use, conservation or maintenance of that building must, in a first stage, be assigned to those various transactions when such assignation is difficult to carry out, in order that, in a second stage, only the deduction entitlement due in respect of those of the goods and services which are used both for certain transactions in respect of which value added tax is deductible and for others in respect of which it is not is determined by applying a turnover-based allocation key or, provided that this method guarantees a more precise determination of the deductible proportion, on the basis of floor area.

2.Article 20 of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 95/7, must be interpreted as requiring value-added-tax deductions made in respect of goods or services falling within Article 17(5) of that directive to be adjusted following the adoption, during the adjustment period in question, of a value-added-tax allocation key used to calculate those deductions that departs from the method provided for by the directive for determining the deduction entitlement.

3.The general principles of EU law of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding applicable national legislation which does not expressly prescribe an input tax adjustment, within the meaning of Article 20 of the Sixth Directive, as amended by Directive 95/7, following amendment of the value-added-tax allocation key used to calculate certain deductions or lay down transitional arrangements although the input tax allocation applied by the taxable person in accordance with the allocation key applicable before that amendment had been recognised as generally reasonable by the supreme court.

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.