Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Mydibel S.A. v État belge

(Case C-201/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mydibel S.A.

Respondent: État belge

Question referred

Must Articles 14, 15, 168, 184, 185, 187 and 188 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, ¹ be interpreted and applied as meaning that there is, or is not, a revision/adjustment of VAT on an investment good comprising immovable property which had initially been deducted correctly, in the case where that immovable property acquired as a capital good was the subject of a “sale and lease back” transaction, given that:

the ‘sale and lease back’ is created by the combined and simultaneous granting of a right of emphyteusis (being a temporary right in rem) by the taxable person to two financial institutions and by a leasing by those two institutions to the taxable person;

that ‘sale and lease back’ is a purely financial transaction designed to increase the liquidity of the taxable person;

the “sale and lease back” transaction was not subject to VAT;

the investment property remained in the possession of the taxable person and was used for the taxable activity of the taxable person in a continuous and sustainable manner, both before and after the transaction?

Does an interpretation and application of the abovementioned provisions leading to a revision/adjustment of the VAT initially deducted comply with the principle of neutrality of VAT and/or with the principle of equal treatment??

____________

¹ OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.