Order — ECLI:EU:C:2019:464
Date: 2019-06-05
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Romania

Translation C-10/19 — 1 
Case C-10/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
3 January 2019 
Referring court: 
Tribunalul București (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
2 February 2018 
Applicant: 
Wilo Salmson France SAS 
Defendants: 
Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală 
Regională a Finanțelor Publice București 
Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală 
Regională a Finanțelor Publice București — Administrația Fiscală 
pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți 
  
[...] 
[...] 
TRIBUNALUL BUCUREȘTI 
SECȚIA A II-A CONTENCIOS ADMINISTRATIV ȘI FISCAL (Regional 
Court, Bucharest — Section II for administrative and tax matters) 
CONCLUSION 
PUBLIC HEARING OF 2 FEBRUARY 2018 
[...] 
An entry has been made in the register of the administrative and tax law action 
brought by the applicant WILO SALMSON FRANCE SAS in proceedings 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2.2.2018 — CASE C-10/19 
 
2  
between it and the defendants AGENȚIA NAȚIONALĂ DE ADMINISTRARE 
FISCALĂ — DIRECȚIA GENERALĂ REGIONALĂ A FINANȚELOR 
PUBLICE BUCUREȘTI (National Agency for Tax Administration — 
Regional Directorate-General for Public Finance, Bucharest) and AGENȚIA 
NAȚIONALĂ DE ADMINISTRARE FISCALĂ — DIRECȚIA GENERALĂ 
REGIONALĂ A FINANȚELOR PUBLICE BUCUREȘTI — 
ADMINISTRAȚIA FISCALĂ PENTRU CONTRIBUABILI NEREZIDENȚI 
(National Agency for Tax Administration — Regional Directorate-General 
for Public Finance, Bucharest — Tax Administration for Non-Resident 
Taxpayers), concerning a challenge to a fiscal administrative act 
[...] [procedure] 
THE TRIBUNALUL: 
In examining the [applicant’s] request for a reference to be made to the Court of 
Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, the referring court finds as 
follows: 
Under Article 267 TFEU, in so far as it is relevant to the present proceedings, the 
Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings 
concerning the interpretation of the Treaties and the validity and interpretation of 
acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union. 
Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, 
that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is 
necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon. 
The present action seeks: annulment of Decision No 560 of 2 September 2016 
issued by the DGRFP București (Regional Directorate-General for Public Finance, 
Bucharest) in response to the complaint brought by Wilo Salmson and notified on 
2 September 2016, which rejected the tax-related complaint brought by that 
company [...] against Decision No 29564D of 12 May 2016 on the reimbursement 
of value added tax; annulment of Decision No 29564D of 12 May 2016 on the 
reimbursement of value added tax in its entirety, in so far as it refuses to refund 
the sum of [RON] 449 538.38; recognition of the company’s right [OR. 2] to a 
refund of the sum of [RON] 449 538.38; and an order for the defendants, jointly 
and severally, to actually refund the company the sum of [RON] 449 538.38. 
The ground relied on by the applicant in its request for a reference to be made to 
the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling is that the main component of the 
subject matter of the case brought by the parties before the referring court 
concerns whether it is possible to refund the VAT relating to purchases which 
were made in 2012 but in respect of which the purchase tax invoices were issued 
in 2015, and that, in relation to the specific circumstances of the case at hand, 
Wilo’s situation is atypical as regards the situations concerned by Directive 
2008/9/EC [laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided 
for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member 
WILO SALMSON FRANCE 
 
3 
State of refund but established in another Member State] and the relevant case-law 
of the Court of Justice. Given that [Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system 
of value added tax] does not expressly provide for a time limit for exercising the 
right of deduction, the applicant considers that the date from which such a time 
limit begins to run cannot be determined exclusively in relation to when the 
delivery of the goods took place, without any other relevant circumstances being 
taken into account. 
Since, in order to examine the factual situation, it is necessary to interpret the 
provisions of EU law laid down in Directive 2006/112/EC and Directive 
2008/9/EC, namely the first of the situations referred to in Article 14(1)(a) of 
Directive 2008/9/EC, together with Articles 167 and 178 of Directive 
2006/112/EC, it is considered that, in order to enable judgment to be given in the 
present case, it is necessary to answer the applicant’s questions. For this reason, 
the referring court will grant the applicant’s request and will refer the following 
questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
[...] [text of the questions set out in the operative part] 
[...] 
ON THOSE GROUNDS 
IN THE NAME OF THE LAW 
HEREBY: 
Accepts the request put forward by the applicant WILO SALMSON FRANCE 
SAS for a reference to be made to the Court of Justice of the European Union for 
a preliminary ruling; 
Refers the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a 
preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU: 
‘1. As regards the interpretation of Article 167 of Directive 2006/112/EC, read in 
conjunction with Article 178 thereof, is there a distinction between the moment 
the right of deduction arises and the moment it is exercised with regard to the way 
in which the system of VAT operates for the purpose of ascertaining whether the 
right to deduct VAT may be exercised where no tax invoice has been issued for 
purchases of goods? 2. As regards the interpretation of Article 167 of Directive 
2006/112/EC, read in conjunction with Article 178 thereof and the first of the 
situations referred to in Article 14(1)[(a)] of Directive 2008/9/EC, to which 
procedural stage is it necessary to refer in order to determine the lawfulness of the 
exercise of the right to reimbursement of VAT for the purpose of ascertaining 
whether a refund application may be made in respect of VAT which became 
chargeable [OR. 3] prior to the refund period but which was invoiced in the 
refund period?’ 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2.2.2018 — CASE C-10/19 
 
4  
[...] [procedure] 
[...] 
[...] 
[Signatures]