CELEX: 62018CN0329
Language: en
Date: 2018-05-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-329/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Supreme Court, Latvia) lodged on 17 May 2018 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA Altic

201807200102012922018/C 276/303292018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180517212222Case C-329/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Supreme Court, Latvia) lodged on 17 May 2018 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA Altic
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN2120120180517EN0030212222Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Supreme Court, Latvia) lodged on 17 May 2018 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA Altic
   (Case C-329/18)2018/C 276/30Language of the case: Latvian
      Referring court
   
   Augstākā tiesa
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   
      Other party to the appeal proceedings: SIA Altic
   
      Questions referred
   
   
            1.
         
         
            Having regard to the aim of ensuring food safety established in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (
                  1
               ) (which is achieved, amongst other means, by ensuring food traceability), should Article 168(a) of Directive [2006/112/EC] (
                  2
               ) be interpreted as not precluding a refusal to allow deduction of input tax where the taxable person involved in the food chain, in choosing his co-contractor, has failed to demonstrate greater diligence (beyond normal commercial practice) entailing, in essence, a requirement to carry out checks on his co-contractor, but where he has at the same time verified the quality of the foodstuffs, thus meeting the aim of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002?
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Does the requirement in Article 6 of Regulation No 852/2004 (
                  3
               ) and in Article 31 of Regulation No 882/2004 (
                  4
               ) concerning regulation of a food business, as interpreted in the light of Article 168(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC, require a party that contracts with that business to check that the business is registered, and is that check relevant for the purposes of determining whether that party knew or should have known that it was taking part in a transaction with a fictitious undertaking, having regard to the particular characteristics of the transaction in question?
         
      (
         1
      )	Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).
   (
         2
      )	Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
   (
         3
      )	Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 1).
   (
         4
      )	Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1).