CELEX: C2005/006/47
Language: en
Date: 2005-01-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-439/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Cour de Cassation (1st Chamber) by decision of that court of 7 October 2004 in the case of Axel Kittel against Belgian State

8.1.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 6/25
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Cour de Cassation (1st Chamber) by decision of that court of 7 October 2004 in the case of Axel Kittel against Belgian State
   (Case C-439/04)
   (2005/C 6/47)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Belgian Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation) (1st Chamber) of 7 October 2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Axel Kittel against the Belgian State on the following questions:
   
               1.
            
            
               Where the recipient of a supply of goods is a taxable person who has entered into a contract in good faith without knowledge of a fraud committed by the seller, does the principle of fiscal neutrality in respect of value added tax mean that the fact that the contract of sale is void, by reason of a rule of domestic civil law which renders the contract incurably void as contrary to public policy on the ground of illegal basis of the contract attributable to the seller, cannot cause that taxable person to lose his right to deduct that tax?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is the answer different where the contract is incurably void for fraudulent evasion of VAT itself?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Is the answer different where the unlawful basis of the contract of sale which renders it incurably void under domestic law is a fraudulent evasion of value added tax known to both parties to the contract?