# C_2014212EN.01001101.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-337/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90 - Reduction of the taxable amount - Extent of obligations of Member States - Direct effect))

2014/C 212/11

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft

Applicant:

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria — Interpretation of Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Compatibility with the directive of national legislation which does not provide for the possibility of adjusting the taxable amount in the case of non-performance of a contract

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The provisions of Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which does not provide for the reduction of the taxable amount for value added tax in the case of non-payment of the price if the derogation provided for in Article 90(2) is applied. However, that provision must then mention all the other situations in which, under Article 90(1), after a transaction has been concluded, part or all of the consideration has not been received by the taxable person, which is a matter for the national court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The provisions of Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which does not provide for the reduction of the taxable amount for value added tax in the case of non-payment of the price if the derogation provided for in Article 90(2) is applied. However, that provision must then mention all the other situations in which, under Article 90(1), after a transaction has been concluded, part or all of the consideration has not been received by the taxable person, which is a matter for the national court to ascertain.

| 2. | Taxable persons may rely on Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 before national courts against the Member State to obtain a reduction of their taxable amount for value added tax. While Member States may provide that the exercise of the right to a reduction of that taxable amount is conditional on compliance with certain formalities which serve to prove in particular that, after the transaction was concluded, part or all of the consideration was definitely not received by the taxable person and that the taxable person was able to rely on one of the situations referred to in Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112, the measures thus adopted cannot exceed what is necessary for that proof, which is for the national court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Taxable persons may rely on Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 before national courts against the Member State to obtain a reduction of their taxable amount for value added tax. While Member States may provide that the exercise of the right to a reduction of that taxable amount is conditional on compliance with certain formalities which serve to prove in particular that, after the transaction was concluded, part or all of the consideration was definitely not received by the taxable person and that the taxable person was able to rely on one of the situations referred to in Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112, the measures thus adopted cannot exceed what is necessary for that proof, which is for the national court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.

1

---