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-153/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 March 2011 — OOD Klub v Director of the Varna Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CN0153

62011CN0153

March 28, 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

25.6.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/12

(Case C-153/11)

2011/C 186/21

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OOD Klub

Defendant: Director of the Varna Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ at the Central Office of the National Revenue Agency (Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite)

Questions referred

1.Is Article 168(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that — once a taxable person has exercised his option and allocated property constituting capital goods to his business assets — it must be presumed (that is to say assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary), that these goods are used for the purposes of taxable transactions effected by the taxable person?

2.Is Article 168(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the right of deduction on the purchase of an immovable property which is allocated to the business assets of a taxable person arises immediately in the tax period in which the tax became due, regardless of the fact that the property cannot be used in view of the absence of approval for its commissioning as required by law?

3.Is an administrative practice such as that of the Natsionalna Agentsia po Prihodite, according to which the right of deduction claimed by persons liable for value added tax on capital goods purchased by them is refused on the grounds that those goods are used for the private purposes of the owners of the companies, without value added tax being imposed on this use, consistent with the directive?

4.In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings does the company, namely the applicant, have a right of deduction on the purchase of an immovable property, namely a maisonette in Sofia?

Language of the case: Bulgarian

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, 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