Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Sveda’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
(Case C-12
of the recreational path as a means of carrying out taxed transactions)Language of the case: LithuanianReferring courtLietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismasParties to the main proceedingsApplicant: ‘Sveda’ UABDefendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos Third party: Kla
ipėdos apskrities valstybinė moke
sčių inspekcija
Operative part of the judgmentArticle 168 of
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of
28 November 2006 on th
e common system of value added tax must be interpreted as granting, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a taxable person the right to deduct t
d transactions)Language of the case: LithuanianReferring court
Lietuvos vyriausiasis administr
acinis teismasParties to the main proceedingsApplicant: ‘Sveda’ UABDefendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos Third party: Klaipėdos apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcijaOperative part of the judgmentArticle 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as granting, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a taxable person the right to deduct the input value added tax paid for the acquisition or production of capital goods, for the purposes of a planned economic activity related to rural and recreational tourism, which are (i) directly intended for use by the public free of charge, and may (ii) enable taxed transactions to be carried out, provided that a direct and immediate link is established between the expenses associated with the input transactions and an output transaction or transactions giving rise to the right to deduct or with the taxable person’s economic activity as a whole, which is a matter for the referring court to determine on the basis of objective evidence.
____________1 OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.