in the Berlin Chemie case (C-333/20), the ECJ deals with the question of whether a sub-subsidiary qualifies as a permanent establishment of its grandmother company in this specific case. The ECJ has come to the conclusion that this is not the case. Although this appears to be a reassuring outcome for practice, the ECJ does leave the possibility open. In Berlin Chemie it provides more guidance on the circumstances in which personnel and technical resources of an independent legal entity can lead to a separate permanent establishment. Whether this will lead to the desired clarity in practice remains to be seen. After the recent ECJ judgments in Dong Yang (C-547/18) and Titanium (C-931/19) shows this case that the concept of permanent establishment continues to demand the necessary attention.
Source: meijburg.nl
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- ECJ VAT Cases decided in 2025
- ECJ C-101/24 ( XYRALITY) – Judgment – German developer is not liable for VAT on services via an app store
- ECJ Rules No VAT Liability for Incorrect Rates Charged to Non-Taxable Consumers
- ECJ Confirms VAT Exemption for EU Goods Exported Outside Union After Intra-Community Supply
- ECJ Rules Against Automatic Single Supply Treatment for Intra-Group Management Services
