In the subject matter there is no question of making a (right to use a) sports facility available by the interested party. In the opinion of the Court, the space in the beach pavilion cannot be regarded as a sports accommodation. In view of the nature and design, this location is clearly not intended for the practice of sports. The fact that this location is used for sports does not change that.
hen asked at the hearing before the Court, the interested party stated that the event beach is a public area determined by the municipality that can also be used by others than the interested party. The use takes place according to the principle: ‘first come, first served’. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the case of the interested party is comparable to the case that led to the Supreme Court 10 August 2007, 43 169, ECLI:NL:HR:2007:AZ3758 (the Four Days Judgment). In it, the Supreme Court ruled that start and finish, with the associated facilities, which together with a course are reserved for that sport during the duration of the sport, can fall under the term ‘sports accommodation’. Unlike the organizers of the Four Days Marches,
Source: rechtspraak.nl
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Court Rules Landowner Acted as VAT Entrepreneur in Sale of Two Building Plots
- VAT on Registration Fees for Legal Services: Burdened Services, Place of Supply, Principle of Equality Disputed
- Photoproducts Not Classified as Art Objects; No 9% VAT Rate, Court Rules
- VAT Assessment: Composite and Independent Services to German Clients, Taxable in Germany and the Netherlands
- Bill to Implement EU VAT in the Digital Age Directive: Single VAT Registration Provisions
