CELEX: C2006/326/79
Language: en
Date: 2006-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Case C-447/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság lodged on 2 November 2006 — Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytársaság, Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai Részvénytársaság v Hungarian State, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testülete, Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete

30.12.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 326/37
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság lodged on 2 November 2006 — Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytársaság, Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai Részvénytársaság v Hungarian State, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testülete, Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete
   (Case C-447/06)
   (2006/C 326/79)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Fővárosi Bíróság
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicants: Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytársaság, Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai Részvénytársaság
   
      Defendants: Hungarian State, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testülete, Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               Must the agreement set out in point 3(a) of part 4 of Annex X to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (‘the Act of Accession’) (1), which is applicable pursuant to Article 24 of the Act of Accession, and which provides that, notwithstanding Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty, Hungary may apply, up to and including 31 December 2007, local business tax reductions of up to 2 % of the net receipts of undertakings, granted by local government for a limited period of time on the basis of Articles 6 and 7 of the Helyi Adókról Szóló 1990. Évi C. Törvény (Act C of 1990 on local taxes), be interpreted as meaning that it concerns a temporary derogation which allows Hungary to maintain the business tax until that time?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               In the light thereof, must Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (‘the Sixth Directive’) (2) be interpreted as meaning that thereunder a Member State may not maintain or introduce a tax on profit-making business activities the basis is of assessment of which is made up of net receipts, after deduction of the cost of acquisition of the goods sold and the services supplied by third parties and the cost of raw materials?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Depending on the answer given to the two questions above, and having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, must the present practice of Hungary's first and second-level tax authorities, which consists in avoiding any examination of the compatibility with Community law of the local business tax, by suggesting to taxpayers that they amend their tax returns by means of self-revision, thus making difficult or impossible the practical application of Community law and requiring taxpayers to initiate tax proceedings with uncertain consequences, be interpreted as impeding the exercise of their rights and therefore as meaning that Hungary is failing to comply with Article 10 of the EC Treaty?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846.
   
      (2)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.