# C_2017374EN.01002001.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 4 September 2017 — Milan Božičevič Ježovnik v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-528/17)

(2017/C 374/29)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Milan Božičevič Ježovnik

Appellant:

Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the importer (declarant), who at the time of the import requests exemption from payment of VAT (import in accordance with procedure 42), inasmuch as the goods are intended to be supplied in another Member State, liable for payment of the VAT (when it is subsequently found that the conditions necessary for exemption have not been satisfied) in the same way that he is liable for payment of the customs debt? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the importer (declarant), who at the time of the import requests exemption from payment of VAT (import in accordance with procedure 42), inasmuch as the goods are intended to be supplied in another Member State, liable for payment of the VAT (when it is subsequently found that the conditions necessary for exemption have not been satisfied) in the same way that he is liable for payment of the customs debt?

| 2. | If the answer is in the negative, is the liability of the importer (declarant) equal to that of the taxable person who makes the intra-Community supply of exempt goods, for the purposes of Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer is in the negative, is the liability of the importer (declarant) equal to that of the taxable person who makes the intra-Community supply of exempt goods, for the purposes of Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive?

| 3. | In the latter case, must the subjective element showing that the importer (declarant) intended to abuse the VAT scheme be assessed differently from the case of the intra-Community supply of goods referred to in Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive? Must that assessment be more concessive, in the light of the fact that in procedure 42 exemption from payment of VAT must be authorised in advance by the customs authority? Or must it be more restrictive, inasmuch as the transactions concerned are connected with the first entry into the European Union internal market of goods originating from third countries? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the latter case, must the subjective element showing that the importer (declarant) intended to abuse the VAT scheme be assessed differently from the case of the intra-Community supply of goods referred to in Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive? Must that assessment be more concessive, in the light of the fact that in procedure 42 exemption from payment of VAT must be authorised in advance by the customs authority? Or must it be more restrictive, inasmuch as the transactions concerned are connected with the first entry into the European Union internal market of goods originating from third countries?

---