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-234/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 May 2011 — TETS Haskovo AD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ , gr. Varna, pri Sentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalna Agentsia po Prihodite

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CN0234

62011CN0234

May 16, 2011
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

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/15

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 May 2011 — TETS Haskovo AD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’, gr. Varna, pri Sentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalna Agentsia po Prihodite

(Case C-234/11)

(2011/C 232/26)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TETS Haskovo AD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’, gr. Varna, pri Sentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalna Agentsia po Prihodite

Questions referred

1.How is the expression ‘destruction of property’ for the purposes of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted, and are the motives for the destruction and/or the conditions under which it takes place relevant for the purposes of the adjustment to the deduction made upon acquisition of the property?

2.Is the demolition of capital assets, duly proved, with the sole aim of creating new, more modern capital assets with the same purpose to be regarded as a modification of the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted within the meaning of Article 185(1) of Directive 2006/112?

3.Is Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as permitting the Member States to make adjustments in the case of the destruction of property where its acquisition remained totally or partially unpaid?

4.Is Article 185(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Article 79(3) of the Law on VAT and Article 80(2)(1) of the Law on VAT, which provides for an adjustment of the deduction made in cases of destruction of property upon the acquisition of which a total payment of the basic amount and the tax calculated was made, and which makes the non-adjustment of a deduction dependent on a condition other than payment?

5.Is Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as ruling out the possibility of an adjustment to the deduction in the case of the demolition of existing buildings with the sole aim of creating new, more modern buildings in their place which fulfil the same purpose as the demolished buildings and [are used for transactions] which [give] entitlement to [deduction of input] VAT?

Language of the case: Bulgarian

(1) OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1.

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