# C_2004156EN.01000603.xml

| 12.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 16 April 2004 in the case of Uudenkaupungin kaupunki

(Case C-184/04)

(2004/C 156/13)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court) of 16 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Uudenkaupungin kaupunki on the following questions:

| 1. | Is Article 20 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the adjustment of deductions in accordance with that article is mandatory for Member States in the case of capital goods unless it follows otherwise from Article 20(5)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 20 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the adjustment of deductions in accordance with that article is mandatory for Member States in the case of capital goods unless it follows otherwise from Article 20(5)?

1

| 2. | Is Article 20 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the adjustment of deductions in accordance with that article is applicable even where the capital goods, in this case real property, were first used in non-taxable activity, in which case an initial deduction could not have been made at all, and only later in taxable activity during the adjustment period ? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 20 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the adjustment of deductions in accordance with that article is applicable even where the capital goods, in this case real property, were first used in non-taxable activity, in which case an initial deduction could not have been made at all, and only later in taxable activity during the adjustment period ?

| 3. | May the second subparagraph of Article 13(C) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may restrict the right to deduct for acquisitions relating to real property investments in the manner laid down in the Finnish Arvonlisäverolaki, where the right to deduct is excluded altogether in situations such as the present one ? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May the second subparagraph of Article 13(C) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may restrict the right to deduct for acquisitions relating to real property investments in the manner laid down in the Finnish Arvonlisäverolaki, where the right to deduct is excluded altogether in situations such as the present one ?

| 4. | May the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may restrict the right to deduct for acquisitions relating to real property investments in the manner laid down in the Finnish Arvonlisäverolaki, where the right to deduct is excluded altogether in situations such as the present one ? |
| --- | --- |

4.

May the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may restrict the right to deduct for acquisitions relating to real property investments in the manner laid down in the Finnish Arvonlisäverolaki, where the right to deduct is excluded altogether in situations such as the present one ?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.77, p. 1).

1

---