CELEX: 62020CN0582
Language: en
Date: 2020-11-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-582/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 5 November 2020 — SC Cridar Cons SRL v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca

15.2.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 53/18
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 5 November 2020 — SC Cridar Cons SRL v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca
      (Case C-582/20)
      (2021/C 53/23)
      Language of the case: Romanian
      
         Referring court
      
      Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellant: SC Cridar Cons SRL
      
         Respondents: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj and Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Are Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which the tax authorities, after issuing a notice of assessment refusing to grant a right to deduct input VAT, are permitted to suspend the examination of an administrative complaint pending the outcome of criminal proceedings that could provide additional objective evidence of the taxable person’s involvement in tax fraud?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Would the answer given by the Court of Justice of the European Union to the first question be different if, during the period for which examination of the administrative complaint is suspended, the taxable person benefits from provisional measures which suspend the effects of the refusal of the right to deduct VAT?
               
            
         (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.