# C_2007117EN.01000402.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2007 — Ecotrade SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova 3

(Case C-96/07)

(2007/C 117/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Geonva

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ecotrade SpA

Applicant:

Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova 3

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a correct interpretation of Articles 17, 21(1) and 22 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes preclude national legislation (in particular Article 19 of DPR 633 of 26/10/72) that makes the exercise of the right to deduct value added tax, payable by a taxable person in the pursuit of his business activities, dependent on compliance with a (two-year) time limit and penalises non-compliance with annulment of that right? That question is asked with reference, in particular, to cases where the liability to VAT on the purchase of the goods or service stems from the application of the reverse charge procedure, which allows the authorities a longer period (of four years under Article 57 of DPR 633/72) in which to demand payment of the duty than the period allowed to the trader for deduction of the duty, on expiry of which the trader's right to such deduction lapses. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a correct interpretation of Articles 17, 21(1) and 22 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes preclude national legislation (in particular Article 19 of DPR 633 of 26/10/72) that makes the exercise of the right to deduct value added tax, payable by a taxable person in the pursuit of his business activities, dependent on compliance with a (two-year) time limit and penalises non-compliance with annulment of that right? That question is asked with reference, in particular, to cases where the liability to VAT on the purchase of the goods or service stems from the application of the reverse charge procedure, which allows the authorities a longer period (of four years under Article 57 of DPR 633/72) in which to demand payment of the duty than the period allowed to the trader for deduction of the duty, on expiry of which the trader's right to such deduction lapses.

1

| 2. | Does it follow from a correct interpretation of Article 18(1)(d) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 that national legislation may not, in regulating the ‘formalities ’referred to in that provision by means of the reverse charge procedure governed by the combined provisions of Articles 17(3), 23 and 25 of DPR 633/72, make (solely to the detriment of the taxpayer) the exercise of the right to deduct permitted by Article 17 of the Directive conditional upon compliance with a time limit such as that laid down in Article 19 of DPR 633/72? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it follow from a correct interpretation of Article 18(1)(d) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 that national legislation may not, in regulating the ‘formalities ’referred to in that provision by means of the reverse charge procedure governed by the combined provisions of Articles 17(3), 23 and 25 of DPR 633/72, make (solely to the detriment of the taxpayer) the exercise of the right to deduct permitted by Article 17 of the Directive conditional upon compliance with a time limit such as that laid down in Article 19 of DPR 633/72?

---

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

1

---