# C_2019065EN.01001102.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — AREX CZ a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-414/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(b)(i) and (iii) - Article 3(1) - Intra-Community acquisitions of goods subject to excise duties - Article 138(1) and (2)(b) - Intra-Community supply of goods - Chain transactions with a single transport - Transaction to which the transport should be ascribed - Transport under an excise duty suspension arrangement - Impact on the classification of an intra-Community purchase))

(2019/C 65/13)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AREX CZ a.s.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 2(1)(b)(iii) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to intra-Community acquisitions of excise goods, in respect of which the excise duty is chargeable in the Member State of destination of the dispatch or transport of those goods, carried out by a taxable person whose other acquisitions are not subject to value added tax pursuant to Article 3(1) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(1)(b)(iii) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to intra-Community acquisitions of excise goods, in respect of which the excise duty is chargeable in the Member State of destination of the dispatch or transport of those goods, carried out by a taxable person whose other acquisitions are not subject to value added tax pursuant to Article 3(1) of that directive.

| 2. | Article 2(1)(b)(iii) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a chain of successive transactions which gave rise only to a single intra-Community transport of excise goods under an excise duty suspension arrangement, the acquisition carried out by the trader liable for payment of the excise duty in the Member State of destination of the dispatch or transport of those goods cannot be classified as an intra-Community acquisition subject to value added tax under that provision, where that transport cannot be ascribed to that acquisition. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 2(1)(b)(iii) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a chain of successive transactions which gave rise only to a single intra-Community transport of excise goods under an excise duty suspension arrangement, the acquisition carried out by the trader liable for payment of the excise duty in the Member State of destination of the dispatch or transport of those goods cannot be classified as an intra-Community acquisition subject to value added tax under that provision, where that transport cannot be ascribed to that acquisition.

| 3. | Article 2(1)(b)(i) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a chain of successive acquisitions concerning the same excise goods and which gave rise only to a single intra-Community transport of those goods under an excise duty suspension arrangement, the fact that those goods are transported under that arrangement does not constitute a decisive factor in determining to which acquisition the transport is to be ascribed for the purposes of applying value added tax under that provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 2(1)(b)(i) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a chain of successive acquisitions concerning the same excise goods and which gave rise only to a single intra-Community transport of those goods under an excise duty suspension arrangement, the fact that those goods are transported under that arrangement does not constitute a decisive factor in determining to which acquisition the transport is to be ascribed for the purposes of applying value added tax under that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.

---