The European Parliament approved the FASTER proposal on 14 November 2024 European Parliament , 14 November 2024, no. 2023/0187(CNS)(Special legislative procedure – renewed consultation)The European Parliament,having regard to the Council draft (09925/2024), having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2023)0324), having regard to its position of 28 February 2024Texts adopted, P9_TA(2024)0102. , having regard to Article 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union...

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo in the case Grupo Massimo Dutti.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Giustizia Tributaria di primo grado di Pescara in the case Harry et Associés.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės in the case Nekilnojamojo turto valdymas.

Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case NARE-BG. Article 184 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, read in conjunction with Article 186 of Directive 2006/112 and the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and neutrality of VAT must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation and administrative practice under which a taxable person is denied the right to deduct input VAT paid prior to that taxable person’s registration for VAT, on the ground that that person requested that deduction after the expiry of the limitation period laid down by the applicable national legislation, by means of a return seeking to correct a VAT return filed before the expiry of that period, notwithstanding the fact that national measures linked to the COVID-19 pandemic were adopted in order to extend the time limits for the filing and payment of certain taxes, without including VAT among those taxes.

Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Centro di Assistenza Doganale Mellano. Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which restricts the pursuit of the activities of customs representatives organised as capital companies, having as their sole corporate purpose the provision of customs assistance services, to the remit of the customs district in which those companies have their registered office, provided that that legislation is consistent with EU law. Article 15(2) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, with a view to ensuring the effectiveness of customs controls, in order to prevent customs fraud and to protect the recipients of customs assistance services, restricts the pursuit of the activities of customs representatives organised as capital companies, having as their sole corporate purpose the provision of customs assistance services, to the remit of the customs district in which those companies have their registered office, in so far as that territorial restriction is not applied consistently and the objective of guaranteeing the effectiveness of those controls could be attained by less restrictive measures.

Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Drebers. Article 190 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, read in conjunction with Article 187 of that directive and in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation on the adjustment of deductions of VAT under which the extended adjustment period laid down in accordance with that Article 187 for immovable property acquired as capital goods does not apply to construction works, subject to VAT as a supply of services within the meaning of that directive, which involve a significant extension and/or substantial renovation of the building concerned by that work and the effects of which have a duration of an economic life which corresponds to that of a new building. Article 190 of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with Article 187 of that directive and in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as meaning that it has direct effect with the result that the taxable person may rely on it before the national court against the competent tax authority in order to have the extended adjustment period laid down for immovable property acquired as capital goods applied to the construction works which were carried out for that taxable person, subject to VAT as a supply of services within the meaning of that directive, where that authority has refused to apply the extended adjustment period to those goods by relying on national legislation such as that referred to in the first question.

Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg. Legal advice by a lawyer in company law matters falls within the scope of the enhanced protection of exchanges between a lawyer and his or her client, so that a decision requiring a lawyer to provide the administration of the requested Member State, for the purposes of an exchange of information on request provided for in Council Directive 2011/16/EU, all the documentation and information relating to his relations with his client, relating to such a consultation, constitutes an interference with the right to respect for communications between a lawyer and his client.

Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case KUBERA. The third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law from deciding – in proceedings relating to the examination of an application for leave to appeal on a point of law the outcome of which depends on the significance of the legal issue raised by one of the parties to the dispute with respect to legal certainty, the uniform application of the law or its development – to refuse such an application for leave without having assessed whether it was obliged to submit to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling a question concerning the interpretation or validity of a provision of EU law raised in support of that application. Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law must set out, in its decision refusing an application for leave to appeal on a point of law containing a request that a question concerning the interpretation or validity of a provision of EU law be referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, the reasons why that reference was not made, namely that that question is irrelevant for the resolution of the dispute or that the provision of EU law in question has already been interpreted by the Court or that the correct interpretation of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt. See also the Consorzio case in H&I 2021/665.

The Council has decided to amend the 2018 Agreement between the EU and Norway on administrative cooperation, combating fraud and recovery of claims in the field of VAT. Council of the European Union , 05 November 2024, no. 2024/2888, OJ LTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 113 in conjunction with Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the European ...

The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) held an Economic Dialogue and exchange of views with Mihály Varga, Minister of Finance of Hungary, in his capacity of President of the ECOFIN Council during the Hungarian Presidency (July to December 2024) on 18 November 2024. High-priority tax areas are: fighting tax evasion, ensuring legal certainty for taxpayers, and supporting the international engagement of the European Union. In the area of taxation, Varga sees an opportunity to enha...

The 2018 Agreement between the EU and Norway on administrative cooperation, combating fraud and recovery of claims in the field of VAT will be amended. This Agreement enters into force on the first day of the second month following the date on which the Parties have notified each other of the completion of the internal legal procedures necessary for that purpose. European Union , 19 November 2024, no. 2024/2889, OJ LTHE EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Union’, and THE KINGDOM O...

MEPs heard Benjamin Angel of the European Commission, and Sanya Gbonjubola and Liselott Kana, Co-Chairs of the UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters about the state of play and the future of European and international tax policy. The invited experts gave an overview of where things stand and laid out what their priorities were. They all stressed the need to reach agreements which could be supported by as many countries as possible rather than seeking impossible u...

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud in the case Oblastní nemocnice Kolín.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) in the case Randstad España.