ECJ VAT T-680/25 (Mercedes Benz) – Questions – Should a free-of-charge provision of moulds be treated as a supply of services?

The ECJ has issued the facts and questions in the case T-680/25 (Mercedes Benz).

Articles in the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC

Article 26

1.Each of the following transactions shall be treated as a supply of services for consideration:
(a) the use of goods forming part of the assets of a business for the private use of a taxable person or of his staff or, more generally, for purposes other than those of his business, where the VAT on such goods was wholly or partly deductible;
(b)the supply of services carried out free of charge by a taxable person for his private use or for that of his staff or, more generally, for purposes other than those of his business.
2. Member States may derogate from paragraph 1, provided that such derogation does not lead to distortion of competition.

Facts and Background

Parties and Dispute: Mercedes-Benz AG filed a legal challenge against Romanian tax authorities over a denied VAT refund related to moulds and equipment used in car part production.
VAT Refund and Tax Assessment: Mercedes-Benz AG requested a VAT refund of RON 22.5 million; the tax authority approved RON 10.3 million but imposed additional VAT of RON 12.17 million, citing improper use of moulds.
Use of Moulds: The company provided moulds free of charge to Romanian manufacturers (e.g., Hutchinson Brașov) to produce parts exclusively for Mercedes-Benz, but not always through direct invoicing.
Tax Authority’s Argument: Authorities claimed the lack of direct supply and involvement of intermediaries broke the “exclusive use” condition, making the provision of moulds a taxable supply of services.
Referral to CJEU: The Bucharest Court of Appeal referred the case to the Court of Justice of the EU to clarify whether indirect supply chains invalidate VAT exemption under Article 26 of Directive 2006/112.

Questions

(1) Must Directive [2006/112] in general, but in particular Article 26 thereof, be interpreted, in a specific context such as that in the main proceedings, as meaning that the making available free of charge of pieces of equipment/moulds by their owner to a particular supplier, which in turn makes them available to one or more sub-suppliers (producers), which produce parts/components, for the benefit the owner of the moulds, which they sell to the supplier, which in turn resells them to the owner of the moulds, may be regarded as a supply of services for consideration?
(2) Does Directive [2006/112] in general, but in particular Article 26 thereof, preclude a judicial interpretation of national law according to which the making available free of charge of the pieces of equipment/moulds to the producer/supplier is not treated as a supply for consideration only if the producer/supplier of the parts/components, for which the pieces of equipment/moulds were used, supplies them directly to the owner of the moulds, that is to say, if this presupposes the existence of a direct invoicing relationship between the producer of the parts/components and the owner of the moulds?

Source