- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-337/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 20 June 2013 — Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0337
62013CN0337
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
19.10.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 304/4
(Case C-337/13)
2013/C 304/06
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft.
Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
Questions referred
1.Is Paragraph 77(1) and (2) of the általános forgalmi adóról szóló 2007. évi CXXVII. törvény (Law CXXVII of 2007 on value added tax), in force until 31 December 2010 consistent with the provisions of Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘VAT Directive’); does the national VAT law cover all the cases of possible reduction of the taxable amount provided for in the VAT Directive?
2.If the answer to the first question is no, is the taxable person entitled, in the absence of national legislation, to reduce the taxable amount, on the basis of the principles of tax neutrality and proportionality, and in the light of Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive, where it receives no consideration on completion of a transaction?
3.If Article 90(1) has direct effect, under what circumstances can [the taxable person] reduce the taxable amount? Is it sufficient to issue an amending invoice and send it to the purchaser or is it necessary, in addition, to demonstrate that, in fact, property in or possession of the goods has been recovered?
4.If the answer to the third question is no, is it obligatory under Community law to compensate the taxable person for the damage arising from the fact that the Member State did not fulfil its obligations as to harmonisation and, as a result, it was not possible for the taxable person to reduce its taxable amount?
5.May Article 90(2) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of total or partial non-payment, the Member States have the possibility of not applying a reduction in the taxable amount. If so, is an express prohibition in the Member State’s legislation necessary or does the absence of any rule have the same legal effect?
(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.