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
Language of the case: Hungarian
Applicant: Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt.
Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
1.Must the provisions of Articles 49, 54, 107 and 108 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a national measure pursuant to which a Member State’s legislation (Law establishing liability to a special tax on telecommunications) has the effect that the actual tax burden falls on foreign-owned taxable persons? Is that effect indirectly discriminatory?
2.Do Articles 107 and 108 TFEU preclude a Member State’s legislation imposing a tax liability on turnover calculated on the basis of a progressive tax rate? If the effect of that legislation is that the actual tax burden, for the highest tax band, falls mainly on foreign-owned taxable persons, is that legislation indirectly discriminatory? Does that effect amount to prohibited State aid?
3.Must Article 401 of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that gives rise to a distinction between foreign-owned taxable persons and national taxable persons? Must the special tax be considered a tax on turnover? In other words, is this tax compatible or not with the VAT Directive?
(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).