- 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-396/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 30 July 2020 — CHEP Equipment Pooling NV v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0396
62020CN0396
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
7.12.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 423/24
(Case C-396/20)
(2020/C 423/36)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: CHEP Equipment Pooling NV
Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
Question referred
Must Article 20(1) of Council Directive 2008/9/EC (1) of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (Directive 2008/9/EC) be interpreted as meaning that, even where there are clear numerical discrepancies (not involving a proportional deduction) between the refund application and the invoice that are to the disadvantage of the taxable person, the Member State of refund may deem that there is no need to request additional information and that it has received all the relevant information on which to make a decision in respect of the refund?
(1) OJ 2008 L 44, p. 23.
* * *