Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
SC Fatorie SRL v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice Bihor (C-424/12)
Judgment
Consideration of the questions referred
The first and third questions
38

SC Fatorie SRL v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice Bihor (C-424/12)

Judgment of 6 Feb 2014law://eu/cjeu/2012/c-424-12/para_38@2026-11-10

38Such a situation prevented the tax authorities from investigating the application of the reverse charge regime and led to a risk of a loss of tax revenue for the Member State concerned.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-424/12 · ECLI:EU:C:2014:50
Decided: 6 Feb 2014
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania)
Applicant: SC Fatorie SRL
Defendant: Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice Bihor
Rapporteur: G. Arestis
Advocate General: J. Kokott
Bench: 5 judges
R. Silva de Lapuerta, J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, G. Arestis, J.-C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev
Language: Romanian
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62012CJ0424

Topics

Principles of Union law Value added tax

History · 1 version

6 Feb 2014Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax
Cited by 11: Tibor Farkas v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alfödi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-564/15)2 provisions; Radu Florin Salomie and Nicolae Vasile Oltean v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj (C-183/14); CTT - Correios de Portugal v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (C-661/18); Michael Schütte v Finanzamt Brilon (C-453/22); Ferimet SL v Administración General del Estado (C-281/20); Dávid Vámos v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (C-566/16); Zabrus Siret SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Iaşi - Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Suceava (C-81/17)3 provisions; Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v AB SEB bankas (C-532/16); Christine Nigl and Others v Finanzamt Waldviertel (C-340/15); Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș (C-144/14); Idexx Laboratories Italia Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate (C-590/13)
Cites 13: Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; Pannon Gép Centrum Kft v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Dél-dunántúli Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály (C-368/09); Ecotrade SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate - Ufficio di Genova 3 (C-95/07); Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite — Plovdiv v Rodopi-M 91 OOD (C-259/12); Axel Kittel v Belgian State and Belgian State v Recolta Recycling SPRL (C-439/04, C-440/04); Hans Eckelkamp and Others v Belgische Staat (C-11/07); Finanzamt Gummersbach v Gerhard Bockemühl (C-90/02); Uszodaépítő kft v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály (C-392/09); Genius Holding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-342/87); Schmeink & Cofreth AG & Co. KG v Finanzamt Borken and Manfred Strobel v Finanzamt Esslingen (C-454/98); José Teodoro de Andrade v Director da Alfândega de Leixões, intervener: Ministério Público (C-213/99); Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (C-210/91); Abbey National plc v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (C-408/98)