Order — ECLI:EU:C:2020:889
Date: 2020-10-29
Language of the case: Slovak

Summary C-621/19 — 1 
Case C-621/19 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
20 August 2019 
Referring court: 
Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
16 April 2019 
Appellant: 
Weindel Logistik Service SR spol. s r.o. 
Respondent: 
Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky 
  
Subject of the main proceedings 
Common system of value added tax — Interpretation of Directive 
2006/112/EC — Article 167 and Article 168(e) — Right to deduct value added 
tax — Refusal — Condition of a right of ownership in respect of the imported 
goods or of the right to dispose of the goods as owner — Condition that the 
imported goods be used for the purposes of the taxable person’s taxable 
transactions in the form of the sale of the goods in the national territory or the 
supply of the goods to another Member State or the export of the goods to a third 
country — Requirement for fulfilment of the condition that there be a direct and 
immediate link between the goods purchased and the output transactions 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Interpretation of EU law. Article 267 TFEU. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 4. 2019 — CASE C-621/19 
 
2  
Questions referred 
1. Must Article 167 and Article 168(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC [of 
28 November 2006] on the common system of value added tax be 
interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct the value added tax which a 
taxable person is required to pay on imported goods is conditional on a right 
of ownership in respect of the imported goods or on the right to dispose of 
the imported goods as owner? 
2. Must Article 168(e) of Directive 2006/112/CE … be interpreted as meaning 
that the right to deduct the value added tax which a taxable person is 
required to pay on imported goods arises only if the imported goods are used 
for the purposes of the taxable person’s taxable transactions in the form of 
the sale of the goods in the national territory or the supply of the goods to 
another Member State or the export of the goods to a third country? 
3. In such circumstances, is the condition that there be a direct and immediate 
link between the goods purchased and the output transaction satisfied and, 
more specifically, is it permissible to apply, in the present case, the 
traditional interpretation of the right of deduction based on a direct and 
immediate link between the goods purchased and the output transactions 
with regard to cost components that have not arisen in relation to the goods 
and that cannot therefore be reflected in the price of the output supply? 
Provisions of EU law cited 
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of 
value added tax: Article 167 and Article 168(e) 
Provisions of national law cited 
Law No 222/2004 on value added tax, as amended (zákon č. 222/2004 Z.z. o dani 
z pridanej hodnoty v znení neskorších predpisov) 
Paragraph 2(1)(d) 
‘The tax shall be chargeable on: 
(a) the supply of goods for consideration, 
(b) the supply of services (‘the supply of services’) for consideration within the 
national territory by a taxable person, 
(c) the purchase within the national territory of goods for consideration from 
another Member State of the European Communities (‘Member State’), 
(d) the importation of goods into the national territory.’ 
Paragraph 3(1) 
WEINDEL LOGISTIK SERVICE 
 
3 
‘“Taxable person” shall mean any person who carries out an independent 
economic activity as referred to in subparagraph 2, whatever the purpose or results 
of that activity.’ 
Paragraph 3(2) 
‘“Economic activity” (“economic activity”) shall mean any income-generating 
activity, including the activities of producers, traders and suppliers of services, 
including mining, construction and agricultural activities, activities pursued as a 
liberal profession under specific regulations, intellectual creative activities and 
sporting activities. The use of tangible and intangible assets for the purpose of 
generating income from such assets shall also be considered an economic activity; 
where asserts are jointly owned by spouses, their use for the purpose of generating 
income shall be considered to be an economic activity in equal shares for each 
spouse, unless the spouses agree otherwise.’ 
Paragraph 21(1) 
Where goods are imported, the tax shall become chargeable: 
(a) upon the goods becoming subject to the customs arrangements for free 
circulation, 
(b) upon the goods becoming subject to the inward processing relief customs 
arrangements under the drawback system, 
(c) upon the termination of the customs arrangements for temporary admission, 
(d) where goods are re-imported and become subject to the customs 
arrangements for free circulation having been subject to the customs 
arrangements for outward processing relief; 
(e) upon the unlawful importation of goods; 
(f) upon the removal of the goods from customs supervision; 
(g) in any other situation where a customs debt arises upon the importation of 
goods.’ 
Paragraph 49(2)(d) 
‘The taxable person may deduct, from the tax he is liable to pay, the tax paid on 
goods and services which he uses for the supply of goods and services as a taxable 
person, subject to the exceptions laid down in subparagraphs 3 and 7. The taxable 
person may deduct the tax if the tax has been paid to the tax authorities upon 
importation of the goods into the national territory.’ 
Paragraph 51(1)(d) 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 4. 2019 — CASE C-621/19 
 
4  
‘The taxpayer may exercise his right to deduct tax in accordance with 
Paragraph 49 if, in respect of deductions under Paragraph 49(2)(d), he holds an 
import document confirmed by the customs authority in which he is identified as 
either consignee or importer.’ 
Paragraph 69(8) 
‘The tax payable on the importation of goods shall be paid by a person who is a 
debtor under the customs regulations, or by the consignee of the goods, if at the 
time of importation the debtor pursuant to the customs regulations is a foreign 
person that holds a single authorisation pursuant to special provisions issued by 
the customs authority of another Member State, provided that the debtor will not 
use the imported goods for the purposes of his own economic activities.’ 
Law No 511/1992 on the administration of taxes and other charges and modifying 
the organisation of regional tax authorities, as amended (zákon č. 511/1992 Zb. o 
správe daní a poplatkov a o zmenách v sústave územných finančných orgánov v 
znení neskorších predpisov) 
Paragraph 44(6)(b)(1) 
‘Where a taxable person is made the subject of a tax audit or repeated tax audit, 
the tax authorities shall, within 15 days of the completion thereof 
(Paragraph 15(13), issue an additional tax assessment if the tax assessed after the 
tax audit differs from the tax declared in the tax return or additional tax return or 
declaration or additional declaration, or if the tax assessed after a repeated tax 
audit differs from the tax levied by the tax authorities after a tax audit, or if it 
differs from the difference in tax in the additional tax assessment.’ 
Case-law of the Court of Justice cited by the referring court 
C-98/98, Midland Bank 
C-408/98, Abbey National 
C-465/03, Kretztechnik 
Outline of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 This request for a preliminary ruling was made in proceedings between the 
company Weindel Logistik Service SR, spol. s.r.o. and Finančné riaditeľstvo 
Slovenskej republiky (Finance Directorate of the Slovak Republic) concerning the 
refusal of the appellant’s right to deduct value added tax (‘VAT’) pursuant to 
Paragraph 51(1)(d) of Law No 222/2004. 
2 By decisions of 18 July 2011, the Daňový úrad Bratislava (Tax Office, Bratislava, 
‘the Tax Office’) refused the appellant the right to deduct VAT for the tax period 
WEINDEL LOGISTIK SERVICE 
 
5 
February to December 2008. The tax difference for that tax period amounts to 
EUR 198 322.25. 
3 The appellant, as consignee and declarant, imported into the Slovak Republic 
goods from Switzerland, Hong Kong and China for the purpose of repackaging 
them. When the goods were released for free circulation, the appellant became 
liable to pay the tax in accordance with Article 21(1)(a) of Law No 222/2004. 
Once the goods had been repackaged, they were exported or supplied from the 
territory of the Slovak Republic to a third country and the repackaging services 
were invoiced to the customer. Ownership of the goods remained with the foreign 
customer the entire time. 
4 The appellant paid the tax and claimed a right of deduction pursuant to 
Paragraph 51(1)(d) of Law No 222/2004. The Tax Office refused to allow the 
appellant to deduct the tax it had paid, on the ground of non-compliance with 
Paragraph 49(2) and Paragraph 51(1)(d) of Law No 222/2004. First of all, neither 
was the appellant the owner of the imported goods, nor did it have the right to 
dispose of the goods as owner. Next, the cost of the goods was not directly and 
immediately linked with the appellant’s economic activity and the appellant had 
not incurred costs in the purchase of goods that would then be included in the 
price of downstream transactions subject to tax. Lastly, the appellant had not used 
the imported goods in order to supply goods or services: it had not sold the goods 
in the national territory, or supplied them to another Member State of the 
European Union, or exported them to a third country, and so it had not used the 
goods for the purposes of its own economic activity as a taxable person. 
5 The Tax Office’s decisions were confirmed by the respondent by decisions of 
13 October 2011. 
6 The appellant brought an action which was dismissed by judgment of the Krajský 
súd v Bratislave (Regional Court, Bratislava, Slovak Republic, ‘the Regional 
Court’) of 20 June 2012. 
7 Subsequently, the judgment of the Regional Court was set aside by judgment of 
the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, 
‘the Supreme Court’) No 3Sžf/78-88/2012 of 15 January 2013, the effect of which 
was that the decisions of the respondent and of the Tax Office were annulled and 
the case was referred back. In its judgment, the Supreme Court stated that the 
appellant had acted correctly in exercising its right to deduct the tax which it had 
been obliged to pay on the imported goods. The economic link lay in the fact that, 
had it not actually imported the goods, the appellant would not have been able to 
carry out the services relating to such goods. The Tax Office and the respondent 
had acted contrary to the law in imposing on the appellant, without any legal 
reason, an impossible condition. The appellant was entitled to provide 
repackaging services even without any right of ownership over the goods, since no 
provision of law prohibited that. If it were otherwise, there would be a breach of 
the principle of neutrality. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 4. 2019 — CASE C-621/19 
 
6  
8 Without there being any change in the facts stated, by new decisions of 16 January 
2014, the Tax Office again refused to recognise the appellant’s right to deduct the 
tax for the period from February to December 2008 amounting to 
EUR 198 322.25, doing so for the same reasons as before. The Tax Office 
reiterated its previous reasoning and also relied on the conclusions of the 94th 
meeting of the ‘VAT Committee’ of 19 October 2011, according to which the 
person that is liable to pay the tax on importing goods does not have a right to 
deduct the tax paid if he has not acquired the right to dispose of the goods as 
owner or if the cost of the goods is not directly and immediately linked to its 
economic activity. The Tax Office also referred to the judgments of the Court of 
Justice in Cases C-98/98, Midland Bank, C-408/98, Abbey National, and 
C-465/03, Kretztechnik. 
9 The appellant appealed against the Tax Office’s decisions of 16 January 2014, 
arguing that the right of ownership, and more specifically the transfer of the right 
to dispose of the goods as the owner, inasmuch as it was a requirement resulting 
from the meeting of the ‘VAT Committee’, related exclusively to the supply of 
goods to a purchaser. The appellant also argued that the words ‘uses for the supply 
of goods and services’, appearing in Paragraph 49(2) of Law No 222/2004, must 
be interpreted in the light of Paragraph 3(3) of that law, with the result that the 
deduction of tax is dependent upon the scope of the use that is made of the goods 
in the taxable person’s economic activity. The appellant had, for the purposes of 
its economic activity, imported goods which it had not in fact subsequently sold, 
but had instead used solely in the pursuit of its principal economic activity, that is 
to say, repackaging services. 
10 By new decisions of 7 April 2014, the respondent confirmed the Tax Office’s 
decisions of 16 January 2013. In particular, it endorsed the Tax Office’s 
reasoning, referring to the conclusions of the meeting of the ‘VAT Committee’. 
11 The dispute was then brought before the Regional Court, which annulled the 
respondent’s decisions of 7 April 2014. An appeal against that judgment was 
brought before the Supreme Court, which ultimately dismissed the application for 
review of the legality of the respondent’s decisions and endorsed the legal 
arguments put forward by the Tax Office and the respondent. The Supreme Court 
rejected the appellant’s request for the case to be referred to the Court of Justice 
and the case was then brought before the Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky 
(Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic), which found that there had been an 
infringement of the appellant’s fundamental right to effective and impartial 
judicial protection. 
Main arguments of the parties 
12 The appellant asserts that it is entitled to deduct the VAT, since the right of 
ownership, and more specifically the transfer of the right to dispose of the goods 
as owner, relates exclusively to the supply of goods to a purchaser. The appellant 
was not a purchaser and so that condition cannot apply in its case. When goods are 
WEINDEL LOGISTIK SERVICE 
 
7 
imported, the liability to pay the tax and the right of deduction are not conditional 
on there being a right of ownership or a right to dispose of the goods as owner. 
The goods were imported for the purposes of its principal economic activity. 
13 The respondent asserts that, when goods are imported, one of the pre-conditions 
for exercising the right to deduct VAT is the acquisition of a right of ownership or 
of the right to dispose of the goods as owner, along with the requirement that there 
be a direct and immediate link with the economic activity, the incurring of costs in 
the purchase of the goods and their use for the supply of goods or services in the 
context of the pursuit of an economic activity. 
Summary of the reasons for the reference 
14 The fundamental question in this case is whether, in a situation in which the 
appellant received imported goods in the territory of the Slovak Republic for the 
purposes of storing and repackaging them, and, on their release for free 
circulation, became liable to tax under Law No 222/2004, and, after storing and 
repackaging the goods, which were subsequently delivered to a third country or to 
other Member States, the appellant was then entitled, on the basis of the invoice 
issued, to deduct the VAT pursuant to Law No 222/2004. 
15 In judgment No 3Sžf/78-88/2012, the Supreme Court found that the appellant had 
become liable to pay the tax on the basis of its having imported goods, not on the 
basis of the supply of goods or services, and that it had therefore acted correctly 
when, against the amount of VAT that it had been required to pay as a taxable 
person on importing the goods into the national territory, it had exercised its right 
to deduct the tax on the supply of goods and services. There was also an economic 
link, in that, had it not imported the goods to its place of business, the appellant 
would not have been able to pursue its economic activity, namely the repackaging 
of goods. 
16 However, it in subsequent judgment in the case, No6Sžf/23/2016, the Supreme 
Court, while acknowledging the conclusions stated in the initial judgment, to the 
effect that the appellant had become liable to pay the tax on the date of acceptance 
of the customs declaration relating to the release of the goods for free circulation, 
arrived at a different conclusion regarding the fulfilment of the conditions for 
deducting the VAT. The Supreme Court emphasised in its judgment that the pre-
condition for the full deduction of VAT is that the goods or services are used for 
the purposes of the taxable person’s economic activity. At the same time, it 
pointed out that, when the right to deduct the tax is exercised, there must, in 
principle, be a direct link between the individual input taxable transaction (goods 
purchased or services received) and the goods or services supplied, [that is to say, 
the costs of the inward transaction must be directly incorporated in the subsequent 
taxable supply]. Consequently, the cost components must, as a general rule, arise 
before the taxable person carries out the taxable transaction to which they relate. 
When the taxable person exercises the right to deduct the tax in full, it must be 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 4. 2019 — CASE C-621/19 
 
8  
able to demonstrate a direct and immediate link with the taxable supply with 
reference to which the law permits it to deduct the tax.  
17 In the light of the above, the Supreme Court concluded that the condition that the 
goods or services should be used for the purposes of the taxable person’s 
economic activity was not fulfilled. Nor was there a direct and immediate link 
between the input transaction and the output transaction, since the appellant had 
not subsequently resold the goods, of which it was not the owner: it had not been 
in a position to perform a taxable transaction; it had merely been able to repackage 
the goods and arrange for their export to the third countries designated by the 
Swiss company that owned the goods. If the appellant were reimbursed the tax 
that it had paid, then there would be no payment of the tax on the national 
territory, since the foreign company was not registered as a taxable person in the 
national territory. The tax that the appellant sought to deduct related to the goods 
and was not part of the repackaging service. The appellant had invoiced the 
foreign company for the repackaging service only and had not included the cost of 
purchasing the goods. 
18 Sic stantibus rebus, having regard to the conclusions drawn by the Constitutional 
Court of the Slovak Republic in its decision No II. ÚS-381/2018-49 of 11 October 
2018, which included the finding that the appellant’s fundamental rights had been 
breached as a result of the fact that the case was not referred to the Court of 
Justice, the Supreme Court finds that, before the case in the main proceedings can 
proceed, it is necessary to refer the questions of interpretation of EU law set out 
above to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.