Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2019:558
Date: 2019-07-03
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 April 2018 — ‘UniCredit Leasing’ EAD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na NAP (Case C-242/18) Language of the case: Bulgarian Referring court Varhoven administrativen sad Parties to the main proceedings Appellant in cassation: ‘UniCredit Leasing’ EAD Respondent in cassation: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na NAP Questions referred In the event of termination of a financial leasing agreement, does the provision contained in Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC 1 on the common system of VAT allow the taxable amount to be reduced and the VAT to be refunded where the VAT has been established by way of a definitive tax assessment notice on the basis of a taxable amount consisting of the sum of the monthly leasing instalments due throughout the term of the agreement? If the first question is answered in the affirmative: in the event of termination of a leasing agreement on account of partial non-payment of the leasing instalments owed, on which of the situations referred to in Article 90(1) of the directive can the lessor rely as against a Member State in order to have the taxable amount for VAT purposes reduced to the extent of the instalments that were owed but not paid in respect of the period from the cessation of payments to the time of termination of the agreement, in the case where the termination is not retroactive and this is confirmed by a clause in the agreement itself? Does the interpretation of Article 90(2) of the VAT Directive permit the conclusion that a situation such as that at issue here involves a derogation from Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive? Does the interpretation of Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive permit the assumption that the term ‘refusal’ used in that provision includes the situation where, in the context of a financial leasing agreement with definite transfer of ownership, the lessor may no longer demand payment of the leasing instalments from the lessee because he has terminated the leasing agreement on account of non-fulfilment of that agreement by the lessee, but is entitled, under that agreement, to compensation in the amount of all the unpaid leasing instalments that would have fallen due up to the end of the term of the lease? ____________ 1 OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.