Case C‑396/16

T‑2 družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme, d.o.o.

v

Republika Slovenija

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 184 and 185 — Adjustment of the deduction of input tax paid — Change in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted — Notion of ‘transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid’ — Effect of a decision approving an arrangement with creditors having the force of res judicata)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 22 February 2018

1.        Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Factors used to determine the deduction of value added tax – Change — Meaning — Reduction of a debtor’s obligations resulting from the final approval of an arrangement with creditors — Included

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 185(1))

2.        Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Adjustment of the initial deduction — No obligation to adjust in the case of transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid — Notion of ‘transaction remaining totally or partially unpaid’ — Reduction of a debtor’s obligations resulting from the final approval of an arrangement with creditors — Not included — Condition — Final reduction — Verification a matter for the national court

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 185(2), first para.)

3.        Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Adjustment of the initial deduction — No obligation to adjust in the case of transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid — Power of the Member States to make provision for that adjustment in those cases — Requirements — No express provision for an obligation to adjust

(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 185(2), second para.

1.      Article 185(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that the reduction of a debtor’s obligations resulting from the final approval of an arrangement with creditors constitutes a change in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted, for the purposes of that provision.

(see para 30, operative part 1)

2.      The first subparagraph of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted to the effect that the reduction of a debtor’s obligations resulting from the final approval of an arrangement with creditors does not constitute a case of a transaction remaining totally or partially unpaid that does not give rise to an adjustment of the initial deduction, where that reduction is definitive, although that is a matter for the referring court to determine.

(see para 45, operative part 2)

3.      The second subparagraph of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted to the effect that, in order to implement the option provided for in that provision, a Member State is not required to make express provision for an obligation to adjust the deductions in the case of transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid.

In that regard, the Court has made it clear that Member States, when exercising an option under the VAT Directive, may choose the legislative technique which they regard as the most appropriate (see, to that effect, judgments of 4 June 2009, SALIX Grundstücks-Vermietungsgesellschaft, C‑102/08, EU:C:2009:345, paragraph 56, and of 4 October 2012, PIGI, C‑550/11, EU:C:2012:614, paragraph 33). Thus, they may, for example, simply incorporate into national legislation the formula used in that directive or an equivalent expression, or set out exhaustively in a list the situations in which, by derogation from Article 185(1) of that directive, there is no need to adjust the initial deductions.

The fact that there is no mention of transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid in such a list may be regarded as the result of the exercise by the Member State of the power of derogation granted to it under the second subparagraph of Article 185(2) of the VAT Directive (see, by analogy, judgment of 15 May 2014, Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi, C‑337/13, EU:C:2014:328, paragraph 24).

(see paras 50, 51, 54, operative part 3)