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-271/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2012 — Petroma Transports SA, Martens Energie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens v État belge

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012CN0271

62012CN0271

June 1, 2012
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

11.8.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/8

(Case C-271/12)

2012/C 243/15

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Petroma Transports SA, Martens Energie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens

Defendant: État belge

Questions referred

1.Is a Member State entitled to refuse to allow a deduction in favour of taxable persons who are recipients of services and are in possession of invoices which are incomplete, but which have been supplemented by the provision of information seeking to prove the occurrence, the nature and the amount of the transactions invoiced (contracts, reconstitution of figures on the basis of declarations made to the national social security institution, information on the functioning of the group involved, …)?

2.Must a Member State which refuses, on the basis of inaccuracies in invoices, to allow a deduction in favour of taxable persons who are recipients of services not find that the invoices are then also too inaccurate to allow payment of the VAT? Consequently, is a Member State not required, in order to safeguard the principle of neutrality of VAT, to repay the VAT which has been paid to it to the companies which supplied the services thus disputed?

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