CELEX: 62010CN0504
Language: en
Date: 2010-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-504/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic lodged on 21 October 2010 — TANOARCH s.r.o. v Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic

12.2.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 46/2
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic lodged on 21 October 2010 — TANOARCH s.r.o. v Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic
   (Case C-504/10)
   2011/C 46/02
   Language of the case: Slovak
   
      Referring court
   
   The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: TANOARCH s.r.o.
   
      Defendant: Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Does Article 2(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax permit a provision whereby a taxpayer may deduct, from his own tax liability, tax on goods and services which he uses for the purposes of his business as a taxpayer, if that tax has been charged to him by another inland taxpayer, on goods and services supplied or to be supplied, in circumstances where the plaintiff, in his capacity as co-applicant in respect of an invention on which a patent has yet to be granted, already owns, as a matter of law, the right independently to use the invention which is the subject-matter of the patent as a whole?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Does the Sixth Directive permit the interpretation that a taxpayer’s existing legal right independently to use a patent results in the legal impossibility of using a service for supplies of goods and services as a taxpayer, and that this results in the legal consumption of the service acquired?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Is the abuse of a taxpayer’s right to deduct input VAT under the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 21 February 2006, Case C-255/02 Halifax and Others, affected by the fact that, regarding the substance of the matter, the invention has not yet been registered as a patent and only parts thereof are operated?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1