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"
- Ecofin report on EU VAT reforms
- Roadtrip through ECJ cases: Focus on Promotional activities/Discounts (Art. 79, 87, 90(1))
- Comments on ECJ case C-234/24 (Brose Prievidza): No VAT Exemption for Tooling Without Physical Movement
- Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on “Liability to pay VAT – Jointly and severally liability of the payment of VAT” (Art. 205)
- ECJ Customs – C-488/24 (Kigas) – AG Opinion – Traders must inform consumers about customs duties before contracts
