Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2021:25
Date: 2021-01-14
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Translation C-108/19 — 1 
Case C-108/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
11 February 2019 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel București (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
14 February 2018 
Appellant (applicant at first instance): 
Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k. 
Respondents (defendants at first instance): 
Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București 
Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți 
  
CURTEA DE APEL BUCUREȘTI (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) 
SECȚIA A VIII-A CONTENCIOS ADMINISTRATIV ȘI FISCAL (Eighth 
Chamber for administrative and fiscal matters) 
ORDER 
Public hearing of 14 February 2019 
[OMISSIS] [composition of the court] 
In the appeal brought by the appellant and applicant at first instance KRAKVET 
SP. Z O.O. SP.K. against the civil judgment [OMISSIS] delivered by the 
Tribunalul București — Secția a II-a Contencios Administrativ și Fiscal (Regional 
Court, Bucharest, Romania, Second Chamber for administrative and fiscal 
matters) on 8 April 2016, in the action against the respondents and defendants at 
first instance DIRECȚIA GENERALĂ REGIONALĂ A FINANȚELOR 
PUBLICE BUCUREȘTI (Regional Directorate-General for Public Finances, 
Bucharest, Romania; ‘the DGRFP’) and the ADMINISTRAȚIA FISCALĂ 
PENTRU CONTRIBUABILI NEREZIDENȚI (Tax Office for Non-resident 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2018 — CASE C-108/19 
 
2  
Taxpayers, ‘the Tax Office for Non-residents’), seeking the annulment of an 
administrative measure. 
[OMISSIS] [national procedure] 
the CURTEA, 
The reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling 
Subject matter of the dispute ‒ Relevant facts 
1 On 4 May 2015, Krakvet sp. z o.o. sp.k. (formerly Marek Batko Społska) lodged 
with the Tribunalul București ‒ Secția a II-a Contencios Administrativ și Fiscal 
(Regional Court, Bucharest, Second Chamber for administrative and fiscal 
matters), as court adjudicating on the merits, an action against the defendants, the 
DGRFP and the Tax Office for Non-residents, seeking the annulment of the 
decision [OMISSIS] of 8 October 2014 issued by the DGRFP — the Tax Office 
for Non-residents, the decision providing for ex officio registration for VAT 
purposes and the issue of a VAT registration certificate [OMISSIS] as well as an 
order requiring the defendants to cancel the ex officio VAT registration of the 
company. 
2 In its application, the applicant stated that it is a company established under Polish 
law operating in the field of the marketing of animal feed and animal rearing aids 
and selling those goods via the Internet. It sells to customers in several EU 
countries, such as Poland, Germany and Romania, and for each country the 
company owns a ‘zoofast’ domain. 
Goods are sold to customers in Romania through www.zoofast.ro. The goods are 
dispatched from the company’s warehouse in Poland, the delivery terms being ex-
works Franco Wieliczka, Poland. 
Goods sold by the company to Romanian customers are not dispatched or 
transported from Poland to Romania by the company or by any other person on its 
behalf, [OR. 2] but are collected by customers directly from the warehouse in 
Poland or transported by a haulier/courier at the customer’s expense on the basis 
of a direct contractual relationship with the carrier. 
As regards the classification of these sales of goods for VAT purposes, Krakvet 
declared them as local supplies of goods in Poland on which it applied VAT under 
Polish law. 
On 8 July 2014, the DGRFP — the Tax Office for Non-residents, issued the 
applicant company with a notice [OMISSIS] requiring it to register for VAT 
purposes in Romania, maintaining that, by selling goods on its website 
www.zoofast.ro, it was carrying out distance sales and that the company had 
exceeded the limit of EUR 35 000 laid down in the Codul fiscal (Tax Code) in 
March 2013, which had triggered its obligation to collect VAT on those sales. 
KRAKVET 
 
3 
On 26 August 2014, the DGRFP — the Tax Office for Non-residents adopted a 
decision entailing the ex officio registration of the company for VAT purposes and 
on 10 September 2014 issued a VAT registration certificate assigning the 
company the VAT code RO335669545. 
The applicant followed the pre-litigation procedure, challenging the notice and the 
decision entailing registration for VAT purposes. 
On 8 October 2014, the competent body dismissed the company’s complaint as 
unfounded. 
The applicant then appealed against the fiscal administrative measures in question 
before the appropriate administrative tax court, arguing that they were unlawful. 
In substance, the company submitted that the economic transactions which it 
carried out did not fall within the category of ‘distance sales’ under 
Article 125a(1)(32) of the Codul fiscal (Tax Code). 
[OMISSIS] [list of documents placed before the court] 
3 [OMISSIS] [national procedure] 
4 By judgment [OMISSIS] of 8 April 2016, delivered by the court adjudicating on 
the merits, the Tribunalul București ‒ Secția a II-a Contencios Administrativ și 
Fiscal (Regional Court, Bucharest, Second Chamber for administrative and fiscal 
matters), that action was dismissed as unfounded. The court held that [OMISSIS] 
the tax authority had correctly classified the applicant’s transactions as distance 
sales, subject to the EUR 35 000 limit, and thus the fiscal administrative measures 
challenged by the applicant were lawful and justified.  
5 On 28 April 2017, the applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment with the 
Curtea de Apel București — Secția a VIII-a Contencios Administrativ și Fiscal 
(Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Eighth Chamber for administrative and fiscal 
matters), which was registered on 30 May 2017. [OMISSIS] It argued that the 
judgment was unlawful. In substance, the applicant, now appellant, submitted that 
the court of first instance had erred in applying Article 125a(1)(32) of the Codul 
fiscal (Tax Code), which did not apply to the fiscal situation in the specific case of 
the economic transactions carried out by Krakvet via its website zoofast.ro: the 
transport of the goods from Poland to Romania was effected neither by the 
company as supplier, nor by a third party acting on the company’s behalf, and so 
the conditions for classifying the transactions as ‘distance sales’ were not fulfilled. 
6 It was in that context, at the appeal stage, that the appellant concluded that it was 
necessary to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
[OMISSIS] [OR. 3] [OMISSIS] concerning the interpretation and application of 
EU law on the legal rules governing VAT, in so far as concerns, in particular, 
intra-Community sales of goods online. [OMISSIS] [the question for a 
preliminary ruling set out in the operative part of the order]. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2018 — CASE C-108/19 
 
4  
7 As to the facts, the Curtea de Apel considers that the appellant, Krakvet sp. z. o. 
o. sp. k. (formerly Marek Batko Spolska), is a company established under Polish 
law operating in the field of the marketing of animal feed and animal rearing aids 
and selling those goods via the Internet. It sells to customers in several EU 
countries, namely Poland, Germany and Romania, and for each country the 
company owns a ‘zoofast’ domain.  
The company supplies goods from Poland to customers that are either natural 
persons or legal persons in Romania through its online animal husbandry products 
sales outlet, which may be accessed at the website www.zoofast.ro. 
As regards operating methods, goods ordered by customers are dispatched from 
the company’s warehouse in Poland, the delivery terms being ex-works Franco 
Wieliczka, Poland. The sales process is completed in the following stages: 
– customers place an order on the website www.zoofast.ro; 
– in completing the order, the customer chooses the manner in which the goods 
are to be collected from the company’s warehouse in Poland; there are two 
options: (a) the customer collects the goods from the company’s warehouse, or 
(b) the customer enters into a transport agreement with the company Sendfast 
sp. z. o.o. (a courier) or another haulier, in which case the invoice for the 
transport service is issued directly by the courier or haulier to the customer, 
who pays the courier or haulier directly;  
– payment for the goods may be made online, by bank transfer, or in cash on 
receipt of the goods; 
– on completion of the order, the customer receives the following documents: 
two contracts, one concluded with Krakvet for the goods purchased and one 
with the courier or haulier for the transport service; two invoices, one issued by 
Krakvet for the goods purchased and one issued by the courier or haulier for 
the transport service, and two receipts for those invoices.  
In so far as concerns the classification of the sales of those goods for VAT 
purposes, Krakvet declares them as local supplies of goods in Poland, on which it 
applies VAT in accordance with Polish law. 
On 8 July 2014, the DGRFP — the Tax Office for Non-residents, issued the 
company with a notice [OMISSIS] requiring it to register for VAT purposes in 
Romania, maintaining that, by selling goods on its website www.zoofast.ro, it was 
carrying out distance sales and that the company had exceeded the limit of 
EUR 35 000 laid down in the Codul fiscal (Tax Code) in March 2013, which had 
triggered its obligation to apply VAT on those sales. 
On 26 August 2014, the DGRFP — the Tax Office for Non-residents, adopted a 
decision entailing the ex officio registration of the company for VAT purposes and 
KRAKVET 
 
5 
on 10 September 2014 issued a VAT registration certificate assigning the 
company the VAT code RO335669545.  
The applicant lodged an administrative appeal against the notice and the decision 
entailing registration [for VAT purposes]. [OR. 4] 
By decision of 8 October 2014 [OMISSIS] the body with responsibility for 
adjudicating on the complaint dismissed it as unfounded. It found an argument in 
favour of the registration of the company for VAT purposes in the fact that the 
provisions of the Codul fiscal (Tax Code) include online sales in the category of 
‘distance sales’, which are subject to a special value added tax regime.  
The applicant brought an action challenging the fiscal administrative measures 
before the administrative court, arguing that they were unlawful and, in particular, 
that the economic transactions carried out by the company did not fall within the 
category of ‘distance sales’. 
Although the tax authorities have reproduced the definition of ‘distance sales’ 
given in Article 125a(1)(32) of the Codul fiscal (Tax Code), it is not apparent 
from that legal definition that all online sales of goods are distance sales. 
The applicant has also stated that one of the essential conditions for regarding a 
transaction as a ‘distance sale’ is that the transportation of the goods from one 
Member State to another is carried out by the supplier or by a third party on the 
supplier’s behalf. However, in the particular case of the transactions carried out by 
the company on the www.zoofast.ro website, the goods are not transported from 
Poland to Romania either by the company, as supplier, or by a third party on the 
company’s behalf. The goods are made available to the customer at the Krakvet 
warehouse in Poland and they are delivered by a courier instructed by the 
customer, which is a separate taxable person and with which a separate 
transport/courier service contract is concluded. The fact that company Sendfast 
sp.z.o.o. is suggested to customers by, and is approved by Krakvet, which 
nevertheless leaves customers free to choose a different haulier, does not mean 
that Sendfast sp.z.o.o, acts on behalf of Krakvet as regards the transport of the 
goods. 
8 The national provisions applicable in this case 
The substantive law which applies in the present case in Legea nr. 571/2003 
privind Codul fiscal (Law No 571/2003 establishing the Tax Code), published in 
the Monitorul Oficial, no 927 of 23 December 2003, as amended (now repealed) 
(‘the Tax Code’), and Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 44/2004 privind Normele 
metodologice de aplicare a Codului fiscal (Government Decree No 44/2004 laying 
down detailed rules implementing the Tax Code)  
– Article 126 of the Tax Code 
Taxable transactions 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2018 — CASE C-108/19 
 
6  
‘1. For tax purposes, taxable transactions in Romania are those that fulfil the 
following cumulative conditions: 
(a) transactions which, in accordance with Articles 128 to 130, constitute or may 
be treated in the same way as a supply of goods or a provision of services for 
consideration relevant for VAT purposes; 
(b) the place of the supply of the goods or the provision of the services is deemed 
to be in Romania, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 132 and 133; 
(c) the supply of the goods or the provision of the services is carried out by a 
taxable person, as defined in Article 127(1), acting as such; 
(d) the supply of the goods or the provision of the services is connected with one 
of the economic activities referred to in Article 127(2). 
2. The importation of goods carried out in Romania by any person shall also 
constitute a taxable transaction if the place of importation is in Romania, in 
accordance with Article 132a. 
3. The following transactions carried out for consideration shall also constitute 
taxable transactions if the place is deemed to be in Romania, in accordance with 
Article 132a: 
(a) intra-Community acquisitions of goods other than new means of transport or 
goods subject to excise duty, made by a taxable person acting as such or by a non-
taxable legal person not entitled to the derogation provided for in paragraph 4, 
which [OR. 5] follow an intra-Community supply made outside Romania by a 
taxable person acting as such that is not regarded as a small undertaking in its own 
Member State and to which Article 132(1)(b), concerning supplies of goods that 
are to be installed or assembled, or Article 132(2), concerning distance sales, does 
not apply;  
(b) intra-Community acquisitions of new means of transport made by any person; 
(c) intra-Community acquisitions of goods subject to excise duty made by a 
taxable person acting as such or by a non-taxable legal person. 
4. By way of derogation from paragraph 3(a), intra-Community acquisitions of 
goods which comply with the following conditions shall not be regarded as 
taxable transactions in Romania:  
(a) they are made by a taxable person that simply supplied goods or provided 
services in respect of which tax is not deductible, or by a non-taxable legal person;  
(b) the total value of such intra-Community acquisitions does not exceed 
EUR 10 000 (the equivalent of which in RON shall be established by law) in the 
current calendar year and did exceed that amount in the previous calendar year. 
KRAKVET 
 
7 
5. The upper limit for intra-Community acquisitions referred to in 
paragraph 4(b) shall be the total value, exclusive of value added tax due or paid in 
the Member State from which the goods are dispatched or transported, of intra-
Community acquisitions of goods other than new means of transport or goods 
subject to excise duty.  
6. Taxable persons and non-taxable legal persons eligible for the derogation 
provided for in paragraph 4 shall be entitled to opt for the general arrangements 
referred to in paragraph 3(a). The option shall apply for at least two calendar 
years.  
7. The rules which shall apply in the event that the upper limit for intra-
Community acquisitions referred to in paragraph 4(b) is exceeded, or in the event 
that the option is exercised, shall be laid down by law. 
… ’ 
– Article 125a of the Tax Code 
Definitions 
‘1. For the purposes of this article, the terms and expressions set out below shall 
have the following meanings: 
… 
(32) ‘distance sale’: a supply of goods dispatched or transported from one 
Member State to another Member State, by the supplier or a third party acting on 
the supplier’s behalf, to a taxable person or a non-taxable legal person eligible for 
the derogation referred to in Article 126(4), or to any other non-taxable person 
under the conditions set out in Article 132(2) to (7),’ 
– Article 132 of the Tax Code 
Place of supply 
‘1. The place of supply of goods shall be: 
(a) the place where the goods are located at the time when dispatch or 
transport begins, in the case of goods dispatched or transported by the 
supplier, the purchaser or a third party; if the place of supply established in 
accordance with this provision is outside the territory of the Community, the place 
where the goods are supplied by the importer and the place of any subsequent 
supply shall be deemed to be in the Member State of importation of the goods and 
the goods shall be deemed to have been dispatched or transported from the 
Member State of importation;  
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2018 — CASE C-108/19 
 
8  
(b) the place where the installation or assembly is carried out by the supplier or by 
a third party on the supplier’s behalf in the case of goods which are to be installed 
or assembled; 
(c) the place where the goods are located when they are placed at the disposal of 
the buyer in the case of goods which are not dispatched or transported; [OR. 6] 
… 
2. By way of derogation from point (a) of paragraph 1, in the case of distance 
sales made from one Member State to Romania, the place of supply shall be 
deemed to be in Romania if the supply is made to a purchaser that is a 
taxable person or a non-taxable legal person eligible for the derogation 
referred to in Article 126(4) or to any other non-taxable person if the 
following conditions are met: 
(a) the total value of the distance sales for which transport or dispatch to Romania 
is carried out by a supplier, in the calendar year in which a particular distance sale 
takes place, including the value of that distance sale, or in the preceding calendar 
year, exceeds the upper limit for distance sales of EUR 35 000, the equivalent of 
which in ROM shall be established by law; or 
(b) in the Member State from which the goods are transported, the supplier has 
opted for its distance sales involving the transport of the goods from that State to 
Romania to be regarded as being made in Romania. 
… ’ 
9 The applicable provisions of EU law 
– Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of 
value added tax (VAT Directive): 
[Title V] Section 2 ‒ Supply of goods with transport 
Article 32 
‘Where goods are dispatched or transported by the supplier, or by the customer, or 
by a third person, the place of supply shall be deemed to be the place where the 
goods are located at the time when dispatch or transport of the goods to the 
customer begins. 
However, if dispatch or transport of the goods begins in a third territory or third 
country, both the place of supply by the importer designated or recognised under 
Article 201 as liable for payment of VAT and the place of any subsequent supply 
shall be deemed to be within the Member State of importation of the goods.’ 
Article 33 
KRAKVET 
 
9 
‘1. By way of derogation from Article 32, the place of supply of goods 
dispatched or transported by or on behalf of the supplier from a Member State 
other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods ends shall be deemed to 
be the place where the goods are located at the time when dispatch or transport of 
the goods to the customer ends, where the following conditions are met: 
(a) the supply of goods is carried out for a taxable person, or a non-taxable legal 
person, whose intra-Community acquisitions of goods are not subject to VAT 
pursuant to Article 3(1) or for any other non-taxable person; 
(b) the goods supplied are neither new means of transport nor goods supplied after 
assembly or installation, with or without a trial run, by or on behalf of the 
supplier. 
2. Where the goods supplied are dispatched or transported from a third territory 
or a third country and imported by the supplier into a Member State other than 
that in which dispatch or transport of the goods to the customer ends, they shall be 
regarded as having been dispatched or transported from the Member State of 
importation.’ 
Article 34 
‘1. Provided the following conditions are met, Article 33 shall not apply to 
supplies of goods all of which are dispatched or transported to the same Member 
State, where that Member State is the Member State in which dispatch or transport 
of the goods ends: 
(a) the goods supplied are not products subject to excise duty; [OR. 7] 
(b) the total value, exclusive of VAT, of such supplies effected under the 
conditions laid down in Article 33 within that Member State does not in any one 
calendar year exceed EUR 100 000 or the equivalent in national currency; 
(c) the total value, exclusive of VAT, of the supplies of goods, other than products 
subject to excise duty, effected under the conditions laid down in Article 33 within 
that Member State did not in the previous calendar year exceed EUR 100 000 or 
the equivalent in national currency. 
2. The Member State within the territory of which the goods are located at the 
time when their dispatch or transport to the customer ends may limit the threshold 
referred to in paragraph 1 to EUR 35 000 or the equivalent in national currency, 
where that Member State fears that the threshold of EUR 100 000 might cause 
serious distortion of competition. 
Member States which exercise the option under the first subparagraph shall take 
the measures necessary to inform accordingly the competent public authorities in 
the Member State in which dispatch or transport of the goods begins. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2018 — CASE C-108/19 
 
10  
3. The Commission shall present to the Council at the earliest opportunity a 
report on the operation of the special EUR 35 000 threshold referred to in 
paragraph 2, accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate proposals. 
4. The Member State within the territory of which the goods are located at the 
time when their dispatch or transport begins shall grant those taxable persons who 
carry out supplies of goods eligible under paragraph 1 the right to opt for the place 
of supply to be determined in accordance with Article 33. 
The Member States concerned shall lay down the detailed rules governing the 
exercise of the option referred to in the first subparagraph, which shall in any 
event cover two calendar years.’ 
Article 36 
‘Where goods dispatched or transported by the supplier, by the customer or by a 
third person are installed or assembled, with or without a trial run, by or on behalf 
of the supplier, the place of supply shall be deemed to be the place where the 
goods are installed or assembled. 
Where the installation or assembly is carried out in a Member State other than that 
of the supplier, the Member State within the territory of which the installation or 
assembly is carried out shall take the measures necessary to ensure that there is no 
double taxation in that Member State.’ 
10 The reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling 
The Court considers that the present dispute involves ascertaining whether the 
fiscal administrative measures adopted by the tax authority are lawful, and that an 
essential issue to be clarified is whether the on-line sales transactions carried out 
by the applicant company may be classified as ‘distance sales’ (transactions 
subject to VAT in Romania) on the basis of the fact that the customer’s selection 
of a courier from the Krakvet website is regarded as establishing that the carriage 
is carried out ‘on behalf of Krakvet’, even though a separate contract is concluded 
between the customer and the selected carrier and a separate invoice and a 
separate proof of payment for the transport services are issued. 
According to the applicant, since the place where the goods sold by Krakvet are 
located at the time when dispatch begins is in all cases in Poland, it is clear that 
the place of supply of the goods must be deemed to be Poland and so Polish VAT 
is applicable. To that end, the applicant states that the company paid VAT in 
accordance with Polish law, under which the place of supply of the goods is 
deemed to be in Poland. Moreover, the competent tax authorities in Poland have 
issued an administrative document confirming that the VAT collected in that 
regard in Poland is lawful. [OR. 8] 
The Romanian tax authorities do not accept that view. They consider that the 
goods supplied by Krakvet fall within the category of ‘distance sales’. They 
KRAKVET 
 
11 
therefore take the view that the company is carrying out distance supplies to a 
Member State of the European Union other than the State of origin, and they 
consequently ordered the ex officio registration of the company for VAT purposes 
in Romania when it exceeded the upper limit of EUR 35 000 referred to in 
Article 132(2)(a) of the Tax Code and required it to collect VAT on sales to 
customers in Romania. 
In support of that position, the tax authorities contend that sales through online 
shops are distance sales and that the condition that the goods be dispatched or 
transported from Poland to Romania ‘by the supplier or on the supplier’s behalf’ 
is fulfilled, given the fact that, on the [OMISSIS] company’s website, several 
transport options are suggested (including a selection of couriers such as 
Sendfast), which clearly demonstrates that the transport is carried out indirectly 
‘on the supplier’s behalf’, even though a separate contractual relationship is 
entered into by the carrier and the customer. 
Article 32 of the VAT Directive enshrines the principle that the place where the 
goods are located at the time when dispatch or transport of the goods to the 
customer begins is deemed to be the place of supply, if the goods are dispatched 
by the supplier or the customer or a third person. Article 33 lays down an 
exception to that rule in that the place of supply of goods dispatched or 
transported by or on behalf of the supplier from a Member State other than that in 
which the dispatch or transport of the goods ends is the place where the goods are 
located at the time when dispatch or transport of the goods to the customer ends, 
where the following conditions two are met: 
(a) the supply of goods is carried out for a taxable person, or a non-taxable legal 
person, whose intra-Community acquisitions of goods are not subject to VAT 
pursuant to Article 3(1) or for any other non-taxable person; 
(b) the goods supplied are neither new means of transport nor goods supplied 
after assembly or installation, with or without a trial run, by or on behalf of the 
supplier. 
Therefore, in a context in which determining the place of supply is dependent on 
an analysis of factors pertaining to dispatch and transport and the transport 
arrangements, that is to say, whether the goods are dispatched or transported by 
the supplier or on the supplier’s behalf, by the customer or by a third party, it is 
necessary to clarify whether, in circumstances such as those described 
[OMISSIS], the customer’s decision to enter directly into a contract (at the time of 
purchasing goods from an online shop) for the transport of the goods from the 
supplier’s Member State to his own Member State, selecting from the shipping 
options offered by the supplier, means that the supply must be regarded as a 
‘distance sale’, regardless of the fact that, in reality, the goods are transported not 
on behalf of the supplier but on behalf of the buyer. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2018 — CASE C-108/19 
 
12  
In other words, the determination of the place of an intra-Community supply of 
goods is made by reference to the time of dispatch or transport, but also by 
reference to who is responsible for the transport, the latter issue being essential 
both for the application of the rule laid down in Article 32 and the exception in 
Article 33; when the goods are purchased from an online store by a customer in a 
Member State other than the one where dispatch begins, if the goods are not 
transported by the supplier or on behalf of the supplier but by another courier from 
the Member State of the supplier, on the basis of the shipment options offered by 
the supplier, then it is necessary to clarify whether, under those conditions, the 
place of supply is the place of dispatch or the place where dispatch ends. 
It is therefore necessary to interpret the provision in Article 33 of Directive 
2006/112 in the context of a sale of goods through an online shop in order to 
determine whether they also apply in the situation where the customer directly 
enters into a contract for the transport of the goods from the Member State of the 
supplier to the customer’s own Member State on the basis of the shipment options 
offered by the supplier [OR. 9], even if the goods are not transported on behalf of 
the supplier; in other words, whether it is an intra-Community supply of goods 
from a distance through an online shop where the supplier does not transport the 
goods on his own behalf but allows the customer to choose a courier, and is thus 
indirectly involved in the transport or dispatch of the goods, and the courier does 
not transport the goods on behalf of the supplier. 
In the light of the foregoing, and given that the national court must apply 
Community law, the court [OMISSIS] 
ON THOSE GROUNDS 
PURSUANT TO THE LAW [OMISSIS]  
grants the request for a reference to made to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling; 
pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, refers the following question 
to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
‘In the context of the sale of goods through an online retail outlet, is Article 33 of 
Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as not applying in the situation where the 
customer directly enters into a contract with the carrier for the transport of the 
goods from the Member State of the supplier to his own Member State, in 
accordance with the dispatching options offered by the supplier, and the goods 
are not transported on behalf of the supplier?’  
[OMISSIS] [procedure and signatures]