# C_2016350EN.01001002.xml

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Astone

(Case C-332/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168, 178 to 182, 193, 206, 242, 244, 250, 252 and 273 - Right to deduct VAT - Substantive requirements - Formal requirements - Limitation period - National provisions excluding the right to deduct where there is a failure to comply with most of the formal requirements - Tax evasion))

(2016/C 350/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Treviso

Party in the main proceedings

Party in the main proceedings

Giuseppe Astone

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 167, 168, 178, the first paragraph of Article 179, and Articles 180 and 182 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation which provides for a limitation period for exercising the right to deduct, such as the limitation period at issue in the main proceedings, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 167, 168, 178, the first paragraph of Article 179, and Articles 180 and 182 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation which provides for a limitation period for exercising the right to deduct, such as the limitation period at issue in the main proceedings, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

| 2. | Articles 168, 178, 179, 193, 206, 242, 244, 250, 252 and 273 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows the tax authorities to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax when it is established that that person has fraudulently failed to fulfil most of the formal obligations incumbent upon him in order to be able to benefit from that right, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 168, 178, 179, 193, 206, 242, 244, 250, 252 and 273 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows the tax authorities to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax when it is established that that person has fraudulently failed to fulfil most of the formal obligations incumbent upon him in order to be able to benefit from that right, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

1

---