- 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-191/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (Non-repayment of the entirety of value added tax unduly paid — National legislation precluding repayment of VAT because it has been passed on to a third party — Compensation in the form of aid covering a fraction of the non-deductible VAT — Unjust enrichment)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012CA0191
62012CA0191
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 225/32
(Case C-191/12) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Non-repayment of the entirety of value added tax unduly paid - National legislation precluding repayment of VAT because it has been passed on to a third party - Compensation in the form of aid covering a fraction of the non-deductible VAT - Unjust enrichment)
2013/C 225/54
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó Kft.
Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria Budapest — Interpretation of European Union law relating to the common system of value added tax — Deduction of input VAT — Aid from State funds for an acquisition of goods, also financing the non deductible VAT on the acquisitions — National legislation precluding repayment of tax on the ground that it has been passed on to a third party
Operative part of the judgment
The principle of repayment of taxes levied in a Member State in infringement of the rules of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude that State from refusing to repay part of the value added tax, the deduction of which had been precluded by a national measure contrary to European Union law, on the ground that that part of the tax had been subsided by aid granted to the taxable person and financed by the European Union and by that State, provided that the economic burden relating to the refusal to deduct value added tax has been completely neutralised, which is for the national court to determine.
* * *
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.