- 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-414/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 10 July 2017 — Arex CZ a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CN0414
62017CN0414
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
11.9.2017
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 300/24
(Case C-414/17)
(2017/C 300/28)
Language of the case: Czech
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant (applicant at first instance): Arex CZ a.s.
Other party (defendant at first instance): Odvolací finanční ředitelství
Questions referred
1.Must any taxable person be regarded as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 138(2)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’)? If not, to which taxable persons does that provision apply?
2.If the Court of Justice’s answer is that Article 138(2)(b) of the VAT Directive applies to a situation such as that in the main proceedings (that is, the acquirer of the products is a taxable person registered for tax), must that provision be interpreted as meaning that, where the dispatch or transport of those products takes place in accordance with the relevant provisions of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (2) concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (3) (‘the Excise Duty Directive’), a supply connected with a procedure under the Excise Duty Directive must be regarded as a supply entitled to exemption under that provision, even though the conditions for exemption under Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive are not otherwise satisfied, having regard to the assignment of the transport of goods to another transaction?
3.If the Court of Justice’s answer is that Article 138(2)(b) of the VAT Directive does not apply to a situation such as that in the main proceedings, is the fact that the goods are transported under an excise duty suspension arrangement decisive for deciding the question of which of several successive supplies the transport is to be ascribed to for the purposes of the right to exemption from VAT under Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive?
(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12.
(3) OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.
* * *