On April 7, 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter: CJEU) rendered judgment in the Berlin Chemie case (C-333/20). At issue was whether a sub‑subsidiary in this specific case qualifies as a fixed establishment of its second-tier parent company. The CJEU concluded that this was not the case. Although this appears to be a reassuring outcome in practice, the CJEU has allowed for the possibility that there could indeed be a fixed establishment. In its Berlin Chemie judgment, the CJEU provided more guidance on the circumstances in which the human and technical resources of an independent legal entity could result in a separate fixed establishment. Whether this provides the desired clarity in practice is debatable. After recent CJEU judgments in, among others, Dong Yang (C-547/18) and Titanium (C-931/19), this case shows that the fixed establishment concept continues to demand attention.
Source Meijburg
See also
- C-547/18 (Dong Yang) – Fixed Establishment for VAT
- C-931/19 (Titanium) – No fixed establishment if the owner of the property does not have his own staff
- C-333/20 (Berlin Chemie A. Menarini SRL) – No Fixed establishment via affiliate rendering services on an exclusive basis
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- Comments on ECJ C-603/24 (Stellantis Portugal) – Transfer pricing and VAT: Court confirms in Stellantis that not every true-up constitutes a service
- ECJ Customs C-307/23 (G GmbH) – Judgment – EU-Designed Label Templates Must Be Included in Customs Value as Container Costs
- ECJ C-603/24 (Stellantis Portugal) – Judgment – Transfer price adjustment not VATable service without direct link.
- Podcast Pawel Mikula & David Hummel: Inside the CJEU – What really happens behind the scenes?
- Comments on ECJ C-436/24 (Lyko): Court Rules Loyalty Points Do Not Qualify as Vouchers
