- 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
Joined Cases C-144/13, C-154/13 and C-160/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — VDP Dental Laboratory NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-144/13), Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV (C-154/13), Nobel Biocare Nederland BV (C-160/13) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Deductions — Exemptions — Supplies of dental prostheses)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CA0144
62013CA0144
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
27.4.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 138/5
(Joined Cases C-144/13, C-154/13 and C-160/13) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Deductions - Exemptions - Supplies of dental prostheses))
(2015/C 138/05)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: VDP Dental Laboratory NV (C-144/13), Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-154/13, C-160/13)
Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-144/13), X BV (C-154/13), Nobel Biocare Nederland BV (C-160/13)
Operative part of the judgment
1)Article 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2007/75/EC of 20 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the exemption from value added tax provided for by national law is incompatible with Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, Article 168 does not permit a taxable person both to benefit from that exemption and to exercise the right to deduct tax.
2)Article 140(a) and (b) and Article 143(a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax for which they provide applies to the intra-Community acquisition and the final importation of dental prostheses supplied by dentists and dental technicians where the Member State of the supply or importation has not implemented the transitional rules provided for in Article 370 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75.
3)Article 140(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for in that provision also applies where the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses originates from a Member State which has implemented the derogating and transitional arrangements provided for in Article 370 of that directive.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.