Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62012CN0283

Case C-283/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria), lodged on 6 June 2012 — Serebryanniy vek EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

OJ C 243, 11.8.2012, p. 9–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

11.8.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria), lodged on 6 June 2012 — Serebryanniy vek EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-283/12)

2012/C 243/16

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Serebryanniy vek EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Questions referred

1.

Can Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that the acquisition of an intangible asset in exchange for assumption of the costs involved in improving a leased asset item or an asset item the use of which has been assigned in some other way constitutes payment for an improvement service even if the owner of the asset item concerned is not required, under the contract, to pay any valuable consideration?

2.

Do Article 2(1)(c) and Article 26 of Directive 2006/112 preclude a national provision under which the supply of a service carried out free of charge and consisting in the improvement of a leased asset item or of an asset item the use of which has been assigned in some other way is in all circumstances to be treated as being taxable? Is it of significance to an answer to this question, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, that:

—

the party supplying the service carried out free of charge has exercised the right to deduct value added tax on the goods and services used in making the improvements and that this has not yet been disallowed by a tax assessment instrument that has become final;

—

at the date of the tax assessment, the company had not yet begun to make any taxable turnover from the properties and the period of validity of the contracts had nevertheless not yet expired?

3.

Do Articles 62 and 63 of Directive 2006/112 preclude a national provision by which the chargeable event for the purposes of the transaction does not occur at the date on which the service is supplied (in this particular case, when improvements are made) but at the time when the asset item is actually returned in its improved condition on the expiry of the contract or on the termination of its use?

4.

If the first and second questions are answered in the negative: under which provision of Title VII of Directive 2006/112 is the taxable amount for purposes of value added tax to be determined in the case where a transaction carried out free of charge does not come within the scope of Article 26 of the directive?

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

Top