CELEX: 62018CN0201
Language: en
Date: 2018-03-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-201/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Mydibel S.A. v État belge

28.5.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 182/15
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Mydibel S.A. v État belge
   (Case C-201/18)
   (2018/C 182/18)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Referring court
   
   Cour d’appel de Mons
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Mydibel S.A.
   
      Respondent: État belge
   
      Question referred
   
   Must Articles 14, 15, 168, 184, 185, 187 and 188 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) be interpreted and applied as meaning that there is, or is not, a revision/adjustment of VAT on an investment good comprising immovable property which had initially been deducted correctly, in the case where that immovable property acquired as a capital good was the subject of a ‘sale and lease back’ transaction, given that:
   
               —
            
            
               the ‘sale and lease back’ is created by the combined and simultaneous granting of a right of emphyteusis (being a temporary right in rem) by the taxable person to two financial institutions and by a leasing by those two institutions to the taxable person;
            
         
               —
            
            
               that ‘sale and lease back’ is a purely financial transaction designed to increase the liquidity of the taxable person;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the ‘sale and lease back’ transaction was not subject to VAT;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the investment property remained in the possession of the taxable person and was used for the taxable activity of the taxable person in a continuous and sustainable manner, both before and after the transaction?
            
         Does an interpretation and application of the abovementioned provisions leading to a revision/adjustment of the VAT initially deducted comply with the principle of neutrality of VAT and/or with the principle of equal treatment??
   
      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.