CELEX: 62016CA0254
Language: en
Date: 2017-07-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-254/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft., formerly Glencore Grain Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 183 — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Deduction of input tax — Refund of overpaid VAT — Investigation procedure — Fine imposed on the taxable person in the course of such a procedure — Extension of the period within which the refund must be made — Exclusion of payment of default interest)

28.8.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 283/8
            
         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft., formerly Glencore Grain Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
   (Case C-254/16) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 183 - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Deduction of input tax - Refund of overpaid VAT - Investigation procedure - Fine imposed on the taxable person in the course of such a procedure - Extension of the period within which the refund must be made - Exclusion of payment of default interest))
   (2017/C 283/11)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft., formerly Glencore Grain Hungary Kft.
   
      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   EU law must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where a tax investigation procedure is initiated by a tax authority and where a taxable person is fined for failure to cooperate, the date of the refund of overpaid value added tax may be delayed until the formal report on that investigation is delivered to the taxable person and the payment of default interest may be refused, even where the duration of the tax investigation procedure is excessive and cannot be attributed entirely to the conduct of the taxable person.
   
      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.