Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2011:118
Date: 2011-03-03
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary of the Judgment 1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Special arrangements for taxable dealers – Margin scheme – Scope (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 314) 2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Special arrangements for taxable dealers – Goods imported into the European Union by the taxable dealer – Inapplicability of the margin scheme – Deferral of the right to deduct tax paid on importation – Not permissible (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 320(1), first para., and (2)) 3. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Special arrangements for taxable dealers – Margin scheme – Provisions defining the scope of the scheme – Rule defining the conditions for deferral of the right to deduct the tax paid when the normal scheme is opted for – Direct effect (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 314 and 320(1), first para., and (2)) 1. Article 314 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the margin scheme is not applicable to supplies of goods such as spare parts for motor vehicles, which the taxable dealer himself imported into the European Union under the normal value added tax scheme. It is apparent from the structure and general scheme of Directive 2006/112, in particular from the classification of taxable transactions in Title IV thereof, that the concept of ‘supply of goods’ in Article 314 of that Directive must be distinguished, in particular, from that of ‘importation of goods’ into the European Union from a third country. (see paras 43, 53, operative part 1) 2. The first subparagraph of Article 320(1) and Article 320(2) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national provision which provides for the deferral, until the subsequent supply subject to the normal value added tax scheme, of the right of the taxable dealer to deduct value added tax paid at the time of the importation of goods other than works of art, collectors’ items or antiques. Where the applicability of the margin scheme is excluded, as, consequently, is the choice between the application of that scheme and the normal value added tax scheme, there is no risk of fraud which could justify ruling out the application of the normal deduction scheme. (see paras 58-59, operative part 2) 3. Article 314, the first subparagraph of Article 320(1) and Article 320(2) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax have direct effect which authorises an individual to rely on them before a national court for the purposes of having national legislation which is incompatible with those provisions disapplied. In Article 314, the definition of the cases covered by the application of the margin scheme is in unequivocal terms and does not require the intervention of any other measures, either of the Union institutions or of the Member States. As regards the first subparagraph of Article 320(1), it sets out, clearly and unconditionally, the imported goods the subsequent supply of which, under the normal value added tax scheme, grants the taxable dealer a right to deduct value added tax payable or paid on importation. Article 320(2), for its part, defines in the same way the scope of application of the rule of deferral of the right to deduct. (see paras 62-63, 65, operative part 3)