CELEX: 62012CN0271
Language: en
Date: 2012-06-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-271/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2012 — Petroma Transports SA, Martens Energie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens v État belge

11.8.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 243/8
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2012 — Petroma Transports SA, Martens Energie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens v État belge
   (Case C-271/12)
   2012/C 243/15
   Language of the case: French
   
      Referring court
   
   Cour d’appel de Mons
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Petroma Transports SA, Martens Energie SA, Martens Immo SA, Martens SA, Fabian Martens, Geoffroy Martens, Thibault Martens
   
      Defendant: État belge
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is a Member State entitled to refuse to allow a deduction in favour of taxable persons who are recipients of services and are in possession of invoices which are incomplete, but which have been supplemented by the provision of information seeking to prove the occurrence, the nature and the amount of the transactions invoiced (contracts, reconstitution of figures on the basis of declarations made to the national social security institution, information on the functioning of the group involved, …)?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Must a Member State which refuses, on the basis of inaccuracies in invoices, to allow a deduction in favour of taxable persons who are recipients of services not find that the invoices are then also too inaccurate to allow payment of the VAT? Consequently, is a Member State not required, in order to safeguard the principle of neutrality of VAT, to repay the VAT which has been paid to it to the companies which supplied the services thus disputed?