# C_2010288EN.01002601.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/26

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 31 August 2010 — Banca Antoniana Popolare Veneta s.p.a., incorporating Banca Nazionale Dell’Agricoltura s.p.a. v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-427/10)

()

(2010/C 288/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banca Antoniana Popolare Veneta spa, incorporating Banca Nazionale Dell’Agricoltura spa

Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the principles of effectiveness, non-discrimination and tax neutrality in respect of value added tax preclude a national framework or practice that construes the right of the purchaser/client to reimbursement of VAT paid in error as a right to a payment due under the ordinary law, unlike that exercised by the principal debtor (supplier/provider of the service), with a time limit for the former significantly longer than that applied to the latter, such that the claim of the purchaser/client, brought when the time limit for the supplier/provider of the service has already expired, can give rise to an order for reimbursement against the latter, who can no longer claim reimbursement from the tax authority, and with no provision for any bridging instrument to prevent conflicts or disputes between the proceedings brought or to be brought before the various courts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the principles of effectiveness, non-discrimination and tax neutrality in respect of value added tax preclude a national framework or practice that construes the right of the purchaser/client to reimbursement of VAT paid in error as a right to a payment due under the ordinary law, unlike that exercised by the principal debtor (supplier/provider of the service), with a time limit for the former significantly longer than that applied to the latter, such that the claim of the purchaser/client, brought when the time limit for the supplier/provider of the service has already expired, can give rise to an order for reimbursement against the latter, who can no longer claim reimbursement from the tax authority, and with no provision for any bridging instrument to prevent conflicts or disputes between the proceedings brought or to be brought before the various courts?

| 2. | Furthermore, are the above-mentioned principles compatible with a national practice or case-law that allows a reimbursement order to be made in favour of the purchaser/client against the supplier/provider of the service that has not brought its reimbursement claim before another court within the time limits imposed on it, relying on a judicial interpretation, implemented by administrative practice, that the transaction was subject to VAT? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Furthermore, are the above-mentioned principles compatible with a national practice or case-law that allows a reimbursement order to be made in favour of the purchaser/client against the supplier/provider of the service that has not brought its reimbursement claim before another court within the time limits imposed on it, relying on a judicial interpretation, implemented by administrative practice, that the transaction was subject to VAT?

---