On 7 April 2022, the Court of Justice of the EU issued its decision in the Berlin Chemie A. Menarini SRL case (C-333/20). This concerns another judgment in a series of cases on the notion fixed establishment for VAT purposes.
The Court of Justice had to assess whether a company, in order to be regarded as having a fixed establishment in the Member State in which it carries out supplies, it is necessary for the human and technical resources employed by that company in the territory of that Member State to belong to it. Or, is it sufficient for that company to have “immediate and permanent access” to such human and technical recourses through another affiliated company which it controls since it holds the majority of its shares?
Source EY
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- Simplifying Triangular Transactions in VAT: Navigating Compliance in 2026
- EN16931 Goes ViDA-Ready: What CEN’s 2026 Approval Changes for EU e-Invoicing
- Intrastat Thresholds and Deadlines: Key Changes for 2026 Across EU Member States
- Roadtrip through ECJ cases: Focus on ”VAT rates” (Art. 96-99)
- Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on ”Exemption” – Currency transactions exclude collectors’ items and numismatic coins
