23.2.2015
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 65/4
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Schoenimport ‘Italmoda’ Mariano Previti vof (C-131/13), T BV (C-163/13), T Mobile Phone’s BV (C-164/13) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Joined Cases C-131/13, C-163/13 and C-164/13) (1)
((References for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Sixth Directive - Transitional arrangements for trade between Member States - Goods dispatched or transported within the Community - Tax evasion carried out in the Member State of arrival - Evasion taken into account in the Member State of dispatch - Refusal of the benefit of rights to deduction, exemption or refund - Absence of provisions in national law))
(2015/C 065/05)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-131/13), T BV (C-163/13), T Mobile Phone’s BV (C-164/13)
Defendants: Schoenimport ‘Italmoda’ Mariano Previti vof (C-131/13), Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-163/13 and C-164/13)
Operative part of the judgment
1)
The questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Cases C-163/13 and C-164/13 are inadmissible;
2)
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national authorities and courts to refuse a taxable person, in the context of an intra-Community supply, the benefit of the rights to deduction of, exemption from or refund of value added tax, even in the absence of provisions of national law providing for such refusal, if it is established, in the light of objective factors, that that taxable person knew, or should have known, that, by the transaction relied on as a basis for the right concerned, it was participating in evasion of value added tax committed in the context of a chain of supplies.
3)
Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 95/7, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who knew, or should have known, that, by the transaction relied on as a basis for rights to deduction of, exemption from or refund of value added tax, that person was participating in evasion of value added tax committed in the context of a chain of supplies, may be refused the benefit of those rights, notwithstanding the fact that the evasion was carried out in a Member State other than that in which the benefit of those rights has been sought and that taxable person has, in the latter Member State, complied with the formal requirements laid down by national legislation for the purpose of benefiting from those rights.
(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy