C 463/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.12.2022
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp.k.
Defendant: Procter & Gamble International Operations SA Intervener: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich
Operative part of the judgment Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, must be interpreted as: precluding the interpretation of a provision of national law according to which a protective measure in the form of the destruction of goods may not be applied to goods which have been manufactured and to which an EU trade mark has been affixed, with the consent of the proprietor of that mark, but which were placed on the market in the European Economic Area without his or her consent.
(1)
OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — HUMDA Magyar Autó-Motorsport Fejlesztési Ügynökség Zrt.
v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Case C-397/21) (1) (Request for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Sales which are not subject to VAT — VAT unduly invoiced and paid — Liquidation of the provider — Refusal by the tax authority to refund to the customer VAT improperly paid — Principles of effectiveness, tax neutrality and non-discrimination) (2022/C 463/12) Language of the case: Hungarian Referring court Fővárosi Törvényszék
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: HUMDA Magyar Autó-Motorsport Fejlesztési Ügynökség Zrt.
Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
Operative part of the judgment 1.
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principles of effectiveness and neutrality of value added tax (VAT), must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a taxable person to whom another taxable person has provided a service cannot claim, directly from the tax authority, a refund of the amount corresponding to the VAT in respect of which that service provider has unduly invoiced that taxable person and which that service provider has paid to the Treasury, where it is impossible or excessively difficult to claim that amount from that service provider on account of that service provider having gone into liquidation and even though no fraud or abuse can be attributed to those two taxable persons, with the result that there is no risk of loss of tax revenue for that Member State.