Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2019:254
Date: 2019-03-27
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Mydibel S.A. v État belge (Case C-201/18) Language of the case: French Referring court Cour d’appel de Mons Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Mydibel S.A. Respondent: État belge Question referred Must Articles 14, 15, 168, 184, 185, 187 and 188 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, 1 be interpreted and applied as meaning that there is, or is not, a revision/adjustment of VAT on an investment good comprising immovable property which had initially been deducted correctly, in the case where that immovable property acquired as a capital good was the subject of a “sale and lease back” transaction, given that: the ‘sale and lease back’ is created by the combined and simultaneous granting of a right of emphyteusis (being a temporary right in rem) by the taxable person to two financial institutions and by a leasing by those two institutions to the taxable person; that ‘sale and lease back’ is a purely financial transaction designed to increase the liquidity of the taxable person; the “sale and lease back” transaction was not subject to VAT; the investment property remained in the possession of the taxable person and was used for the taxable activity of the taxable person in a continuous and sustainable manner, both before and after the transaction? Does an interpretation and application of the abovementioned provisions leading to a revision/adjustment of the VAT initially deducted comply with the principle of neutrality of VAT and/or with the principle of equal treatment?? ____________ 1 OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.