This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0463
Case C-463/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 October 2014 — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
Case C-463/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 October 2014 — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
Case C-463/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 October 2014 — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
OJ C 439, 8.12.2014, p. 24–25
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
8.12.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 439/24 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 October 2014 — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
(Case C-463/14)
(2014/C 439/33)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Аdministrativen sad
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD
Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
Questions referred
|
1. |
Should Article 24(1) and point (b) of Article 25 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘supply of services’ also covers cases involving subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services such as those at issue in the main proceedings, namely where a supplier, having qualified personnel available for supplying the services, has agreed to be on call for the customer during the term of the contract and has undertaken to refrain from entering into similar contracts with the customer’s competitors? |
|
2. |
Should Articles 64(1) and 63 of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that, for subscribed consulting services, the chargeable event occurs on expiry of the period for which the payment was agreed, irrespective of whether and how often the customer makes use of the supplier’s on-call services? |
|
3. |
Should Article 62(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that a person supplying services in connection with a subscription consulting contract is obligated to charge value added tax for the services on expiry of the period for which the subscription fee was agreed, or does this obligation arise only if the customer has made use of the consultant’s services? |
(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1).