Cedilac SA v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie.
Date: 2007-12-18
31. In order to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling, it should be noted, at the outset, that the Court has consistently held that the right to deduct provided for in Article 17 et seq. of the Sixth Directive is an integral part of the VAT scheme and in principle may not be limited. In particular, the right to deduct is exercisable immediately in respect of all the taxes charged on transactions relating to inputs (see, inter alia, Case C 62/93 BP Soupergaz  [1995] ECR I‑1883, paragraph 18, and Joined Cases C-110/98 to C–147/98 Gabalfrisa and Others  [2000] ECR I‑1577, paragraph 43).
32. The Court has also stated that given that any limitation on the right of deduction of VAT affects the level of the tax burden and must be applied in a similar manner in all the Member States, derogations are permitted only in the cases expressly provided for in the Sixth Directive (see, to that effect, BP Soupergaz , paragraph 18, and Joined Cases C-177/99 and C‑181/99 Ampafrance and Sanofi  [2000] ECR I-7013, paragraph 34). However, such derogations can only be transitional in nature, as the objective of Article 28(4) of the Sixth Directive is their abolition (see, to that effect, Case C-136/97 Norbury Developments  [1999] ECR I‑2491, paragraph 20; Case C-36/99 Idéal Tourisme  [2000] ECR I-6049, paragraph 32; Case C-345/99 Commission  v France  [2001] ECR I‑4493, paragraph 21; and Case C-240/05 Eurodental  [2006] ECR I‑11479, paragraph 52).
34. Secondly, Article 28(3)(d) of the Sixth Directive, whilst it precludes the introduction of new exemptions or an extension of the scope of existing exemptions following the entry into force of the Sixth Directive, does not prevent a reduction in their scope, given the transitional nature of the derogation for which it provides (see, by analogy, Commission  v France , paragraph 21).
35. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that in paragraph 20 of the judgment in Norbury Developments , which concerned another transitional provision of the Sixth Directive, namely Article 28(3)(b) thereof, relating to certain exemptions from VAT, the Court held that amendments inserted into the legislation of a Member State which had not widened the scope of the VAT exemption in question, but had on the contrary reduced it, had not been adopted in disregard of the wording of that provision.
37. Moreover, as the Court held in Norbury Developments , a different interpretation of one of the derogations provided for by the Sixth Directive, to the effect that a Member State may maintain an existing exemption but may not abolish it gradually, would be contrary to the objective pursued by that directive, which aims to abolish the derogations therefrom. Likewise, such an interpretation would undermine the uniform application of the Sixth Directive, in that a Member State might find itself compelled to maintain all the exemptions existing at the date of the entry into force of that directive, even if it regarded it as possible, appropriate and desirable progressively to implement the system provided for therein in the field in question (see, to that effect, Norbury Developments , paragraph 21).