CELEX: 62017CA0528
Language: en
Date: 2018-10-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-528/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Milan Božičevič Ježovnik v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 143(1)(d) – Exemption from import VAT – Importation followed by an intra-Community supply – Risk of tax evasion – Good faith of the taxable importer and supplier – Assessment – Duty of care of the taxable importer and supplier)

7.1.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 4/8
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Milan Božičevič Ježovnik v Republika Slovenija
      (Case C-528/17) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 143(1)(d) - Exemption from import VAT - Importation followed by an intra-Community supply - Risk of tax evasion - Good faith of the taxable importer and supplier - Assessment - Duty of care of the taxable importer and supplier)
      (2019/C 4/11)
      Language of the case: Slovene
      
         Referring court
      
      Vrhovno sodišče
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Milan Božičevič Ježovnik
      
         Defendant: Republika Slovenija
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Article 143(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/69/EC of 25 June 2009, must be interpreted to the effect that, in circumstances where the taxable importer and supplier benefitted from an exemption from import value added tax on the basis of an authorisation issued after a prior examination by the competent customs authorities in the light of the evidence provided by that taxable person, the latter is not required to pay value added tax after the event where it is revealed, during a subsequent examination, that the substantive conditions for the exemption had not been met, except where it is established, in the light of objective evidence, that that taxable person knew, or should have known, that the supplies subsequent to the imports at issue were involved in fraud committed by the customer and that he did not take all reasonable steps in his power to avoid that fraud, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.
      
         (1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.