# C_2006237EN.01000602.xml

| 30.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Legfelsőbb Bírósága/Hungary lodged on 18 July 2006 — OTP Garancia Biztosító Rt. v Vas Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

(Case C-312/06)

(2006/C 237/11)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Legfelsőbb Bírósága/Hungary

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OTP Garancia Biztosító Rt.

Applicant:

Defendant: Vas Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the agreement set out in point 3(a) of part 4 of Annex X to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (1) (‘the Act of Accession’), which is applicable pursuant to Article 24 of the Act of Accession, and which provides that, notwithstanding Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty, Hungary may apply, up to and including 31 December 2007, local business tax reductions of up to 2 % of the net receipts of undertakings, granted by local government for a limited period of time on the basis of Articles 6 and 7 of Act C of 1990 on Local Taxes, be interpreted as meaning that it concerns a temporary derogation which allows Hungary to maintain the tax on economic activities, that is to say, as meaning that the Treaty of Accession, in contemplating the possibility of maintaining the tax reductions relating to the tax on economic activities, recognised that Hungary has the temporary right to maintain a tax of the same type as the tax on economic activities? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the agreement set out in point 3(a) of part 4 of Annex X to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (1) (‘the Act of Accession’), which is applicable pursuant to Article 24 of the Act of Accession, and which provides that, notwithstanding Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty, Hungary may apply, up to and including 31 December 2007, local business tax reductions of up to 2 % of the net receipts of undertakings, granted by local government for a limited period of time on the basis of Articles 6 and 7 of Act C of 1990 on Local Taxes, be interpreted as meaning that it concerns a temporary derogation which allows Hungary to maintain the tax on economic activities, that is to say, as meaning that the Treaty of Accession, in contemplating the possibility of maintaining the tax reductions relating to the tax on economic activities, recognised that Hungary has the temporary right to maintain a tax of the same type as the tax on economic activities?

1

| 2. | Must Article 33(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) (‘the Sixth Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits the maintenance of a tax (the local tax on economic activities) on profit-making business activities which is fundamentally characterised by the fact that it is imposed in respect of net receipts, after deduction of the cost of acquisition of the goods sold and the services supplied by third parties and the cost of raw materials? That is to say, with reference to that article, may a tax with those characteristics be classified as a turnover tax? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 33(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) (‘the Sixth Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits the maintenance of a tax (the local tax on economic activities) on profit-making business activities which is fundamentally characterised by the fact that it is imposed in respect of net receipts, after deduction of the cost of acquisition of the goods sold and the services supplied by third parties and the cost of raw materials? That is to say, with reference to that article, may a tax with those characteristics be classified as a turnover tax?

2

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846.

1

(2)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

2

---