Marian Macikowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku.
Date: 2015-03-26
36. In that regard, the Court has already had occasion to hold that, given that Articles 90(1) and 273 of the VAT Directive do not, outside the limits laid down therein, specify either the conditions or the obligations which the Member States may impose, those provisions give the Member States a margin of discretion (see judgment in Kraft Foods Polska , C-588/10, EU:C:2012:40, paragraph 23).
37. However, the measures which the Member States may adopt under Article 273 of the VAT Directive to ensure the correct collection of the tax and to prevent evasion must not go further than is necessary to attain such objectives and must not undermine the neutrality of VAT (see judgments in Nidera Handelscompagnie , C‑385/09, EU:C:2010:627, paragraph 49, and Klub , C‑153/11, EU:C:2012:163, paragraph 50).
47. In that regard, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law, in the exercise of the powers conferred on them by European Union directives, Member States must respect the general principles of law that form part of the European Union legal order, which include, in particular, the principles of legal certainty and proportionality (see, to that effect, judgments in Schloßstrasse , C‑396/98, EU:C:2000:303, paragraph 44, and ‘Goed Wonen’ , C‑376/02, EU:C:2005:251, paragraph 32).
48. With more particular regard to the principle of proportionality, it must be pointed out that, whilst it is legitimate for the measures adopted by the Member States, on the basis of the provisions of the VAT Directive, to seek to preserve the rights of the public exchequer as effectively as possible, such measures must not go further than is necessary for that purpose (see, to that effect, judgments in Molenheide and Others , C‑286/94, C‑340/95, C‑401/95 and C‑47/96, EU:C:1997:623, paragraph 47, and Federation of Technological Industries and Others , C‑384/04, EU:C:2006:309, paragraph 30).
51. In that context, it should be borne in mind that it is not for the Court, in the context of the judicial cooperation established by Article 267 TFEU, to give a ruling on the interpretation of provisions of national law, or to decide whether the referring court’s interpretation of those provisions is correct. The Court must take account, under the division of jurisdiction between it and the national courts, of the factual and legislative context, as described in the order for reference, in which the questions put to it are set (judgments in Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí and VEGAP , C‑518/08, EU:C:2010:191, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited, and Logstor ROR Polska , C‑212/10, EU:C:2011:404, paragraph 30).
55. It should be remembered that, according to settled case-law, the right to deduct provided for in Article 167 et seq. of the VAT Directive is an integral part of the VAT scheme and, in principle, may not be limited. The right to deduct is exercisable immediately in respect of all the taxes charged on transactions relating to inputs (see, inter alia, judgments in Gabalfrisa and Others , C‑110/98 to C‑147/98, EU:C:2000:145, paragraph 43; Kittel and Recolta Recycling , C‑439/04 and C‑440/04, EU:C:2006:446, paragraph 47; Mahagében and Dávid , C‑80/11 and C‑142/11, EU:C:2012:373, paragraph 38; and Gran Via Moineşti , C‑257/11, EU:C:2012:759, paragraph 21).