Available languages

Taxonomy tags

Info

References in this case

Share

Highlight in text

Go

7.7.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Maramureș (Romania) lodged on 26 March 2014 — Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș

(Case C-144/14)

2014/C 212/13

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Maramureș

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș

Joined as guarantor: Direcția Sanitar-Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Maramureș

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 273 and point 18 of Article 287 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that the national tax authority was under an obligation to register a taxable person for VAT purposes and to find that person liable to pay the VAT, and the related ancillary debts, arising from the fact that the tax exemption threshold had been exceeded, with effect from the date on which the taxable person submitted tax declarations to the competent tax authority showing that the VAT exemption threshold had been exceeded?

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the principle of legal certainty preclude national practice on the basis of which the tax authority has established retroactively that a taxable person is liable to pay VAT because the supply of veterinary services is not exempt from VAT and the tax exemption threshold was exceeded, in a situation in which:

—

the tax authority did not, of its own motion, register the taxable person for VAT purposes and did not find that person liable to pay VAT from the moment when the taxable person submitted the tax declarations showing that the threshold had been exceeded, but did so later, after the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Tax Code had been amended by Government Decree No 1620/2009 to the effect that the exemption provided for under Article 141(1)(a) of the Tax Code does not apply to the supply of veterinary services, as established by the Court of Justice in Case 122/87 Commission v Italy EU:C:1988:256, and in relation to a period preceding that amendment;

—

through the tax declarations submitted by the taxable person, the tax authority had become aware, before the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Tax Code were amended by Government Decree No 1620/2009 in the manner described above, that the exemption threshold had been exceeded;

—

before the publication of Government Decree No 1620/2009, the tax authority did not adopt in its area of competence — which also covers the taxable person in the main proceedings — any administrative tax measures designed to establish that taxable persons which are veterinary practices had failed to register for the purposes of VAT incurred as a consequence of the VAT payment exemption threshold being exceeded and, consequently, intended to establish the liability of those persons for VAT;

—

during the period preceding the adoption and entry into force of Government Decree No 1620/2009, the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 122/87 Commission v Italy EU:C:1988:256 had not been published in any form in the Romanian language?

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1, Special Edition 9, vol. 3, p. 7)