Judgment_paragraph 35 · Mahagében Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága and Péter Dávid v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-80/11, C-142/11)

35First of all, it must be noted that, having regard to the various dates of the facts in the main proceedings, the questions submitted refer to both the Sixth Directive and Directive 2006/112. As was noted at paragraph 3 of the present judgment, the latter directive has not, in principle, made material changes to the Sixth Directive. In particular, the provisions of those two directives which are relevant in the context of the cases in the main proceedings are, in essence, identical. In those circumstances, it is sufficient to examine the questions referred in relation to the provisions of Directive 2006/112 (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-180/10 and C-181/10 Słaby and Others [2011] ECR I-8461, paragraphs 28 and 49 to 51).