- 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-146/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — SCT d.d., in liquidation v Republic of Slovenia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 90 and 273 — Taxable amount — Reduction — Refusal — Non-payment — Taxable person who did not lodge a claim in insolvency proceedings commenced against the debtor — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Direct effect)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0146
62019CA0146
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
17.8.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 271/14
(Case C-146/19)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 90 and 273 - Taxable amount - Reduction - Refusal - Non-payment - Taxable person who did not lodge a claim in insolvency proceedings commenced against the debtor - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality - Direct effect)
(2020/C 271/19)
Language of the case: Slovenian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: SCT d.d., in liquidation
Defendant: Republic of Slovenia
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 90(1) and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a taxable person is refused the right to a reduction of the value added tax paid in respect of an irrecoverable claim where he has failed to lodge that claim in insolvency proceedings commenced against the debtor, even though the taxable person has shown that, had he lodged the claim, he would not have been able to recover it;
2.Article 90(1) of the Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that national courts are required, by virtue of their obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure the implementation of that provision, to interpret national law in conformity with that provision or, if such an interpretation is not possible, to disapply any national legislation the application of which would lead to a result contrary to that provision.
(1) OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.