Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:328
Date: 2014-05-15
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 15 May 2014 1. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Taxable amount — Reduction in the event of cancellation or refusal, or where the price is reduced — National legislation which does not provide for a reduction in the case of non-payment of the price — Whether permissible — Conditions — Application by a Member State of the derogation provided for in the event of total or partial non-payment of the price (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 90(1) and (2)) 2. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Taxable amount — Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 — Reduction in the event of cancellation or refusal, or where the price is reduced — Direct effect (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 90(1)) 3. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Taxable amount — Reduction in the event of cancellation or refusal, or where the price is reduced — National legislation making that reduction subject to certain formalities — Lawfulness — Conditions — Proportionality (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 90(1) and 273) 1. Article 90 of Directive 2006/112 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. Admittedly, Article 90(1) embodies one of the fundamental principles of Directive 2006/112, according to which the taxable amount is the consideration actually received and the corollary of which is that the tax authorities may not charge an amount of value added tax exceeding the tax paid by the taxable person. However, Article 90(2) permits Member States to derogate from the abovementioned rule in the case of total or partial non-payment of the transaction price. That national provision must be regarded as the result of the exercise by the Member State of the power of derogation granted it under that article. In that regard, if the total or partial non-payment of the purchase price occurs without there being cancellation or refusal of the contract, the purchaser remains liable for the agreed price and the seller, even though no longer proprietor of the goods, in principle continues to have the right to receive payment, which he can rely on in court. Since it cannot be excluded, however, that such a debt will become definitively irrecoverable, the EU legislature intended to leave it to each Member State to determine whether the situation of non-payment of the purchase price, which, of itself, unlike cancellation or refusal of the contract, does not restore the parties to their original situation, leads to an entitlement to have the taxable amount reduced accordingly under conditions it determines, or whether such a reduction is not allowed in that situation. (see paras 22-25, 28, operative part 1) 2. Taxable persons may rely on Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax before national courts against a Member State to obtain a reduction of their taxable amount for value added tax. Whenever the provisions of a directive appear, so far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, they may be relied upon before the national courts by individuals against the State where the latter has failed to implement the directive in domestic law by the end of the period prescribed or where it has failed to implement the directive correctly. In that regard, a provision of EU law is unconditional where it sets forth an obligation which is not qualified by any condition, or subject, in its implementation or effects, to the taking of any measure either by the institutions of the European Union or by the Member States. Although that article grants the Member States a certain degree of discretion when adopting the measures to determine the amount of the reduction, that does not alter the precise and unconditional nature of the obligation to allow the reduction in the taxable amount in the cases referred to by that article. It therefore fulfils the conditions for it to have direct effect. (see paras 31, 32, 34, 40, operative part 2) 3. While Member States may provide that the exercise of the right to a reduction of that taxable amount for value added tax 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 definitively 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 on the common system of value added tax, the measures thus adopted cannot exceed what is necessary for that proof, which is for the national court to ascertain. Admittedly, given that Articles 90(1) and 273 of Directive 2006/112 do not, outside the limits laid down therein, specify either the conditions or the obligations which the Member States may impose, it must be held that those provisions give the Member States a margin of discretion, inter alia, as to the formalities to be complied with by taxable persons vis-à-vis the tax authorities of those States in order to ensure that the taxable amount is reduced. However, measures to prevent tax evasion or avoidance may not, in principle, derogate from the rules relating to the taxable amount except within the limits strictly necessary for achieving that specific aim. They must have as little effect as possible on the objectives and principles of Directive 2006/112 and may not therefore be used in such a way that they would have the effect of undermining the neutrality of value added tax. (see paras 37, 38, 40, operative part 2)