# C_2014175EN.01002901.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 April 2014 — ‘Koela-N’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-159/14)

2014/C 175/36

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Koela-N’ EOOD

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that the ability to dispose of tangible property as owner also includes the right to instruct a carrier to deliver the goods to a third person other than the intended recipient stated on the invoice, and, on that basis, the receipt of the goods by that person on its own constitutes proof of previously effected supplies of goods? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that the ability to dispose of tangible property as owner also includes the right to instruct a carrier to deliver the goods to a third person other than the intended recipient stated on the invoice, and, on that basis, the receipt of the goods by that person on its own constitutes proof of previously effected supplies of goods?

1

| 2. | Is Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the goods are not actually in the possession of the direct supplier — regardless of whether the buyer has received the goods — means that the conditions for the existence of a supply under the directive are not satisfied? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the goods are not actually in the possession of the direct supplier — regardless of whether the buyer has received the goods — means that the conditions for the existence of a supply under the directive are not satisfied?

| 3. | Do the fact that the upstream suppliers in the supply chain have not assisted the tax authorities and the non-loading of the goods constitute objective grounds from which it may be inferred that the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct is connected with tax fraud? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do the fact that the upstream suppliers in the supply chain have not assisted the tax authorities and the non-loading of the goods constitute objective grounds from which it may be inferred that the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct is connected with tax fraud?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---