62024CO0262_INF
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2025 –Pegazus Busz
(Case C‑262/24)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Manifest inadmissibility – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Right to deduct input VAT – Refusal – Tax avoidance – Obligations of the taxable person – Burden of proof – Principles of proportionality and legal certainty – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Contradiction between national case-law and EU law – Article 267 TFEU – Primacy of EU law – Obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling)
1.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Assessment of the facts of the case – Application of EU law to the dispute in the main proceedings – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court
(Art. 267 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 21-24, operative part 1)
2.
Harmonisation of fiscal legislation – Common system of value added tax – Transactions constituting an abusive practice – Evidentiary requirements – Clarification of the constituent elements of fraud – Provision of evidence of fraudulent conduct – Establishment of active participation in fraud or of awareness of that fraud – Verification to be carried out by the national courts
(see paragraphs 27, 28)
3.
Harmonisation of fiscal legislation – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Right of deduction – Refusal on the ground that a taxable person was involved with tax evasion – Whether permissible – Condition – Respect for the right to a fair trial under the Charter of Fundamental Rights
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Directive 2006/112)
(see paragraph 29, operative part 2)
4.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – General or hypothetical questions – No connecting factor between the dispute in the main proceedings and the provision of EU law referred to in the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Inadmissibility
(Art. 267 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 32, 33, operative part 3)
5.
Union law – Primacy – Decisions of the supreme court of a Member State contrary to the interpretation of provisions of EU law provided by the Court – National legislation requiring the courts of that Member State to comply with those decisions – Not permissible – Obligation on those courts to make a further reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling – None
(Art. 267 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 36-40, operative part 4)
Operative part
1.
The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the first, second and third questions, with the exception of point (c) of the first question, referred by the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary), by decision of 29 February 2024.
2.
The right to a fair trial, enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that its observance requires that the taxable person be apprised of and be able to discuss, in inter partes proceedings, evidence on which the tax authority relies in order to find that that taxable person is participating in value added tax avoidance.
3.
The request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court) is manifestly inadmissible as regards the fourth question referred by that court.
4.
The principle of primacy of EU law and Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court ruling on remittal, after the setting aside of a decision in appeal proceedings brought on a point of law – in the context of which it is required, under national law, to follow the guidance provided in the remittal decision – is nevertheless under an obligation to deviate from that guidance if it deems it, in particular in the light of the case-law of the Court, to be contrary to EU law, without that court being required to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling.