Please find below an overview of the questions that were raised to the ECJ in 2019.
For most of the cases, we have maintained a separate page (just click on the relevant case) where we provide further background information.
If you have any comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
C-655/19 – “Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov” vs. RO
Taxable person – Purchase and subsequent sale of real estate by creditor: economic activity? Is the creditor a taxable person?
C-630/19 – PAGE Internacional vs. PT
Right to deduct VAT – May Portugal limit the deductibility of the input VAT on expenditure on food to 50%, even where the taxable person demonstrates that all that expenditure has been fully applied to the carrying on of its taxed economic activity?
C-610/19 – Vikingo Fővállalkozó vs. HU
Right to deduct VAT – Input VAT, artificial transactions, proof and proportionality. The authorities argue that Vikingo’s goal was to create an artificial input VAT claim for itself. The questions focus on what proof is required to substantiate input VAT recovery. There are also questions regarding chain transactions and proportionality of sanctions.
C-593/19 – SK Telecom vs. AT
Place of supply – Input VAT recovery for roaming charges incurred by Korean Telecom provider when providing access to the Austrian telecom network to non-EU visitors.
C-521/19 – Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Galicia vs. ES
Taxable amount – Is VAT deemed to be included in the amounts paid and received, even in case of fraud where no invoice was issued?
C-520/19 – ARMOSTAV MÍSTEK s.r.o. v. Odvolací finanční ředitelství vs. CZ
Right to deduct VAT – Input VAT recovery by person held liable for missing tax in a fraudulent chain. Order as as the Czech court provided insufficient information.
C-519/19 – BMW Bayerische Motorenwerke AG vs. DE
Customs value – Should development costs, for software that has been produced in the European Union, made available to the seller by the buyer free of charge and installed on imported control units, be added to the transaction value for the imported product pursuant to Article 71(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, if they are not included in the price actually paid or payable for the imported products?
C-501/19 – UCMR – ADA vs. RO
Subject – VAT treament for collective management of copyright on musical works. Who perform to whom? Do the copyright holders invoice the collection agency, which in turn invoices the organizers of performances?
C-459/19 – Wellcome Trust Ltd vs. UK
Place of supply – Place of supply of investment management services to a taxable person who carries out a non-economic activity consisting in the purchase and sale of shares and other securities
C-449/19 – WEG Tevesstraβe vs. DE
Exemption – Germany applies a VAT exemption to supplies of heat by owners’ associations to the owners. Due to this an association of home and co-owners, a GmbH, government agency and municipality, were disallowed to claim input VAT on the purchase and operating costs of a combined heat and power plant. Is this allowed?
C-424/19 – Cabinet de avocat UR vs. RO
Taxable persons – Does the concept of ‘taxable person’ include persons who practice the profession of lawyer? Does the principle of the primacy of EU law permit an exception to be made according to which lawyers do not supply goods, do not carry out an economic activity and do not conclude contracts for the supply of services, but instead conclude contracts for legal assistance?
C-405/19 – Vos Aannemingen vs. BE
Deduction – How to deal with recovery of input VAT, if the costs also benefit another party that uses the purchases for (VAT exempt) activities that do not give a right to claim back input VAT? Does it matter how strong the link is between the costs and the VAT exempt activities? Does it matter if the person that claimed input VAT was allowed, but chose not to, recharge the costs to the other party?
C-374/19 – Finanzamt Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler vs. DE
Right to deduct VAT – Input VAT adjustment; Capital goods; Termination of economic activity. Does a taxable person who produces an investment object with regard to taxable use with entitlement to input tax deduction (in this case: construction of a building for the operation of a cafeteria) have to adjust the input tax deduction under Article 185(1) and Article 187 of the EU VAT Directive (2006/112) if he ceases the sales activity justifying the input tax deduction (in this case: operation of the cafeteria) and the investment object now remains unused in the scope of the previously taxable use?
C-373/19 – Dubrovin & Tröger – Aquatics vs. DE
Exemption – Does the concept of school and university tuition within the meaning of Article 132 (1) (i) and (j) of the VAT Directive also include the issue of swimming lessons?
C-371/19 – Commission v Germany vs. DE
Right to deduct VAT – VAT refund to non-resident taxable persons – European Commission has referred Germany to the ECJ in the course of infringement proceedings concerning an alleged refusal by Germany to permit taxpayers an opportunity to provide additional information in support of claims to ‘Eighth Directive’ VAT refunds
C-346/19 – Bundeszentralamt für Steuern vs. DE
Still pending Right to deduct VAT – VAT refunds to non-resident taxable persons; content of application; invoice number – 8th VAT refund reques. Can a VAT refund claim made under the intra-EU refund procedure (f8th Directive) e considered as having been validly made in circumstances where the reference number of an invoice has been declared instead of the actual invoice number
C-335/19 – E. Sp. z o.o. Sp. k vs. PL
Value – May Poland link the VAT bad debt relief to the tax status of the debtor and the creditor? Is it allowed to require that on the date on which the service or goods are supplied and on the day preceding the date on which the tax return adjustment is filed, the debtor is not subject to insolvency or liquidation proceedings and/or the creditor and debtor are both registered as active VAT taxpayers?
C-312/19 – XT vs. LT
Taxpayer – A partnership was entered into, to develop and exploit 5 houses. Out of the five buildings, four have been sold at different times. Further, along the process, the partnership was terminated, and XT became owner of three buildings. The authorities argue that XT performed a single supply and was liable to remit output VAT for all houses that were sold. Who is liable for VAT, and to what extent?
C-288/19 – Finanzamt Saarbrücken vs. DE
Place of supply of services – A question has been referred to the ECJ on whether the making available of a company car to an employee for no consideration constitutes the supply of ‘hiring of a means of transport to a non-taxable person’, taxable where the employee is established or normally resides
C-242/19 – CHEP Equipment Pooling vs. RO
Taxable transactions, Deduction – 8th Directive VAT refund request. Authorities deny refund as it seems that CHEP should have been VAT registered due to its fictitious intracommunity transactions, and should have claimed the input VAT via a regular VAT return.
C-235/19 – United Biscuits (Pensions Trustees) and United Biscuits Pension Investments vs. UK
Exemptions – VAT exemption; supplies of pension fund management services; insurance transactions
C-231/19 – Blackrock Investment Management (UK) vs. UK
Exemptions – VAT exemption; Provision of management services by third party used for management of both special investment funds and other funds
C-215/19 – Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö vs. FI
Place of supply of services – Whether the supply of services comprising the hosting of customer computer servers in a computer centre, constitutes the leasing or letting of immovable property, and if not, whether such services are otherwise to be regarded as connected with immovable property, the place of supply of which is the location of the property
C-108/19 – Krakvet vs. RO
Place of supply – The place of supply for Intra-Union distance sales of goods is where the goods are located at the time when dispatch or transport of the goods to the customer ends. Does this also apply if the customer directly enters into a contract with the carrier for the transport of the goods (and the goods are not transported on behalf of the supplier)?
C-10/19 – Wilo Salmson France vs. RO
Deduction – When should input VAT be recovered if no invoice is received? ECJ received insuficient info to process the case. The Court rules the request being inadmissable.
C-9/19 – Mitliv Exim vs. RO
Other – The validity of national legislation concerning the payment of criminal damages imposed during a pre-trial investigation, and a subsequent tax inspection in parallel with the criminal proceedings, in which the accused taxpayer has been brought to trial to respond to a charge of tax evasion which imposes on that taxpayer ancillary tax liabilities for both the period and the amount already made available to the tax authorities during the pre-trial investigation phase