CELEX: 62013CN0492
Language: en
Date: 2013-09-13 00:00:00
Title: Case C-492/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 September 2013 — ‘Traum’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno osiguritelna praktika’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

23.11.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 344/48
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 September 2013 — ‘Traum’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno osiguritelna praktika’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
   (Case C-492/13)
   2013/C 344/83
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Administrativen sad — Varna
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant:‘Traum’ EOOD
   
      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno osiguritelna praktika’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is the requirement giving entitlement to tax exemption under Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) fulfilled and is there no exception under the second paragraph of Article 139(1) of the Directive in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings in which it was established that the absence of the characteristic of a ‘person registered under the ZDDS’ in respect of the acquirer of the goods was indicated in the Union database after the actual supply, but the applicant claims that it acted with due diligence by obtaining information in this system which is not documented? The late recording of the characteristic of a ‘person registered under the ZDDS’ emerges from hard copies/information of the tax authorities.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Are the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations violated by administrative practice and case-law according to which it is for the vendor — the consignor under the transport contract — to determine the authenticity of the acquirer’s signature and to establish whether it comes from a person representing the company (the acquirer), one of its employees in a corresponding position or an authorised person?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               In a case such as the present does Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC have direct effect, and can the national court directly apply the provision?
            
         
      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).