C 94/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
13.3.2023
2.
Do Articles 63, 64 and 66 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax preclude an administrative practice of a tax authority, such as the one in the present case, consisting in imposing additional payment obligations on the taxable person — a professional limited liability company (SPRL) through which administrators of insolvency proceedings may exercise their profession — in so far as that taxable person issued invoices and collected VAT only on the date on which payments were received for services provided in the context of insolvency proceedings, even though the general assembly of creditors established that the payment of the insolvency administrator’s fee is subject to the availability of liquid assets in the debtors’ accounts? 3.
In the case of a co-branding agreement between a law firm and the taxable person, is it sufficient, for the purpose of granting the right to deduct, that the taxable person, when proving the existence of a direct and immediate link between the purchases made by the upstream taxable person and the downstream transactions, demonstrate, after the agreement, an increase in the turnover/value of the taxable transactions, without further supporting documentation?
If so, what are the criteria to be taken into account in order to determine the actual scope of the right to deduct? 4.
Is the general EU-law principle of respect for the rights of the defence to be interpreted as meaning that, where, in the course of a national administrative procedure for ruling on a complaint against a notice of assessment that has established the payment of additional VAT, new factual and legal arguments are accepted as compared with those contained in the tax audit report on the basis of which the notice of assessment was issued, and the taxable person has been granted interim judicial protection measures, pending the decision of the court dealing with the substance of the case, by suspending the debt, the court hearing the action may take the view that there has been no breach of that principle without examining whether the outcome of that procedure might have been different, had it not been for such an irregularity?
(1)
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 15 November 2022 — SC AA SRL v MFE (Case C-701/22) (2023/C 94/13) Language of the case: Romanian Referring court Curtea de Apel Cluj
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: SC AA SRL Defendant: MFE
Questions referred 1.
Must the principle of sound financial management be interpreted, in conjunction with the principle of equivalence, as precluding a legal person, which operates a profit-making undertaking and is the recipient of non-repayable financing from the ERDF, from obtaining from the public authority of a Member State default interest (penalty interest) in relation to the late payment of eligible expenditure for a period in which an administrative act was in force that excluded reimbursement and which was subsequently annulled by a judicial decision? 2.
If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is the fault of the recipient of the financing established by that decision relevant to the quantification of the amount of default interest, having regard to the fact that the same public authority responsible for the management of the European funds declared, ultimately, after the adoption of that decision, all the expenditure eligible?