22.6.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/2

(Case C-144/13)

2013/C 178/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: VDP Dental Laboratory NV, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

1.Should Article 17(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive be interpreted to mean that if a national statutory provision, contrary to the Directive, provides for an exemption (in respect of which the right to deduct is excluded), the taxable person is entitled to the right to deduct in reliance on Article 17(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive?

2.Should Article 143(a) and Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive be interpreted to mean that the exemptions from VAT contained in those provisions do not apply to the importation and the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses? If the answer to that question is in the negative, is the application of the exemptions then subject to the condition that the dental prostheses must have been supplied from another country by a dentist or dental technician and/or supplied to a dentist or dental technician?

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).

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

* * *