The Advocate General highlighted the recent increase in cases on fixed establishment and the opportunity for the Court to provide further clarity on the issue. The case involves a dispute over the place of supply and fixed establishment between Adient DE and Adient RO in Romania. The dispute concerns the use of German VAT number and the presence of technical and human resources in Romania. The Advocate General addressed issues related to taxable supply and whether a group company can be considered a fixed establishment of another group company.
Source KPMG
See also
- Summary of AG Opinion in ECJ C-533/22 (Adient) – The same means cannot be used at the same time to provide and receive the same services
- ECJ C-533/22 (Adient) – AG Opinion – Fixed establishment solely on the basis that the two companies belong to the same group?
- Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on ”Fixed Establishments” (Art. 44 & 45)
- Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ VAT Cases, click HERE
- VATupdate.com – Your FREE source of information on ECJ VAT Cases
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- ECJ C-472/24 (Žaidimų valiuta) – AG Opinion – VAT Treatment of In-Game Gold Transactions
- ECJ C-436/24 (Lyko Operations) – AG Opinion – VAT Treatment of Loyalty Program Points
- ECJ Upholds Czech Joint VAT Liability in Fuel Fraud Case, Validates EU Law Compliance
- CJEU Rules on VAT for Transfer Price Adjustments in Arcomet Towercranes Case C-726/23
- Agenda of the ECJ VAT cases – 4 AG Opinions, 1 Hearings till October 10, 2025
