# C_2015294EN.01001002.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — NLB Leasing d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-209/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Supply of goods or services - Lease agreement - Return of immovable property that is the subject-matter of a lease agreement to the lessor - Concept of ‘cancellation, refusal or total or partial non-payment’ - Lessor’s right to a reduction of the taxable amount - Double taxation - Separate supplies - Principle of fiscal neutrality))

(2015/C 294/13)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: NLB Leasing d.o.o.

Appellant:

Respondent: Republika Slovenija

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 2(1), 14 and 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where a lease agreement relating to immovable property provides either that ownership of that property is to be transferred to the lessee on the expiry of that agreement or that all the essential powers attaching to ownership of that property are to be enjoyed by the lessee and, in particular, substantially all the rewards and risks incidental to legal ownership of that property are transferred to the lessee and the present value of the amount of the lease payments is practically identical to the market value of the property, the transaction resulting from that agreement must be treated as an acquisition of capital goods. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 2(1), 14 and 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where a lease agreement relating to immovable property provides either that ownership of that property is to be transferred to the lessee on the expiry of that agreement or that all the essential powers attaching to ownership of that property are to be enjoyed by the lessee and, in particular, substantially all the rewards and risks incidental to legal ownership of that property are transferred to the lessee and the present value of the amount of the lease payments is practically identical to the market value of the property, the transaction resulting from that agreement must be treated as an acquisition of capital goods.

| 2. | Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not permitting a taxable person to reduce the taxable amount where that person has in fact received all the payments in consideration for the service which he supplied or where, without the agreement having been refused or cancelled, the recipient of that service is no longer liable to the taxable person for the agreed price. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not permitting a taxable person to reduce the taxable amount where that person has in fact received all the payments in consideration for the service which he supplied or where, without the agreement having been refused or cancelled, the recipient of that service is no longer liable to the taxable person for the agreed price.

| 3. | The principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding, first, a leasing service relating to immovable property and, second, the sale of that property to a person who is a third party to the lease agreement, being taxed separately for value added tax purposes, where those transactions cannot be regarded as forming a single supply, which is a matter for the referring court to determine. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding, first, a leasing service relating to immovable property and, second, the sale of that property to a person who is a third party to the lease agreement, being taxed separately for value added tax purposes, where those transactions cannot be regarded as forming a single supply, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.

1

---