Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 May 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék – Hungary) – Klinka-Geo Trans Földmunkavégző Ipari, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-501/24, 1 Klinka-Geo Trans)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Manifest lack of jurisdiction – 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 – 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)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Fővárosi Törvényszék
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Klinka-Geo Trans Földmunkavégző Ipari, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft.
Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
Operative part of the order
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a tax authority from refusing the deduction of the value added tax (VAT) on an economic transaction without examining whether the recipient of the invoice was or should have been aware that that transaction was involved in a VAT fraud, where that authority declares that the transaction in question did not take place.
The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the second question referred by the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary) for a preliminary ruling.
The request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary), made by decision of 4 June 2024, is manifestly inadmissible in so far as concerns the fourth and sixth questions referred by that court.
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 the light of clear 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.
____________
1 OJ C, C/2024/5500.