Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2024:591
Date: 2024-06-25
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-763/23 – 1 
Case C-763/23 
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: 
12 December 2023 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
19 October 2023 
Appellants on appeal/defendants at first instance: 
Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași (Regional 
Directorate-General for Public Finances of Iași, Romania) 
Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Iași – 
Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bacău – Activitatea de 
Inspecție Fiscală (Regional Directorate-General for Public Finances 
of Iași – District Administration of Public Finances of Bacău – Tax 
Inspection Activity) 
Respondent on appeal/applicant at first instance: 
SC Dragoram Tour SRL 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal against a judgment partially upholding the application for administrative 
judicial review brought by the respondent on appeal/applicant at first instance 
seeking the annulment of certain administrative and tax measures relating to value 
added tax (VAT) issued by the appellants on appeal/defendants at first instance. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
On the basis of Article 267 TFEU, the interpretation of Articles 306(1), 307 and 
308 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common 
system of value added tax (‘Directive 2006/112’) is sought. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-763/23 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1) Do the provisions of Article 306(1) and Article 308 of [Directive 2006/112] 
preclude national legislation which provides for an exception to the application of 
the special tax scheme applicable to travel agents, by granting a right to opt for the 
application of the special tax scheme or that of the normal tax arrangements 
(exemption with the right of deduction) in the case of travel agents as regards 
international transport of passengers, as provided for in Article 311(10)(a) of 
Legea [nr.] 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal (Law No 227/2015 on the Tax Code) 
and paragraph 85(6) of H[otărârea] G[uvernului] nr. 1/2016 [pentru aprobarea 
Normelor metodologice de aplicare a Legii nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal] 
(Government Decree No 1/2016 approving the detailed rules for the 
implementation of Law No 227/2015 on the Tax Code), with reference to the 
provisions of Article 294(1)(g) and Article 271 of Law No 227/2015 on the Tax 
Code? 
2) Does a travel agent which carries out transactions consisting of the resale of 
airline tickets, purchased from third-party taxable persons, to natural persons at a 
price including a surcharge carry out transactions falling within the scope of the 
special scheme for travel agents provided for in Article 306 of [Directive 
2006/112], for the purposes of determining the taxable amount by reference to the 
travel agent’s margin within the meaning of Articles 307 and 308 of [Directive 
2006/112], even where those transactions are not accompanied by any additional 
services? 
3) Can the service provided by the travel agent by means of reselling airline 
tickets purchased from third parties, to which it adds a surcharge, be regarded as a 
single service, in so far as it automatically/intrinsically includes, in addition to the 
sale/resale of airline tickets, specific services provided by a travel agent such as 
information and advice? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Articles 306(1), 307 and 308 of Directive 2006/112 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Legea nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal (Law No 227/2015 on the Tax Code) 
(‘the Tax Code’): Article 311 (which governs the special VAT scheme applicable 
to travel agents, that is to say, the 19% profit margin), Article 294(1)(g) 
(according to which international transport of passengers is exempt from VAT) 
and Article 271(2) (which provides that, where a taxable person acting in his own 
name, but on behalf of another person, takes part in a supply of services, he is 
deemed to have received and supplied those services himself). 
DRAGORAM TOUR 
 
3 
Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 1/2016 pentru aprobarea Normelor metodologice de 
aplicare a Legii nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal (Government Decree No 1/2016 
approving the detailed rules for the implementation of Law No 227/2015 on the 
Tax Code) (‘the Detailed Rules’), paragraph 85(6), according to which travel 
agents are, in principle, required to apply the special VAT scheme provided for in 
Article 311 of the Tax Code; however, for passenger transport, they may apply the 
normal VAT arrangements (exemption from VAT with right of deduction), unless 
the transport is sold together with other tourist services. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The respondent on appeal/applicant at first instance, which is a travel agent, was 
the subject of a tax inspection relating to the period from 1 July 2017 to 31 March 
2020 which led to the tax authority appellants on appeal/defendants at first 
instance issuing administrative and tax measures imposing on the travel agent an 
additional obligation to pay VAT collected, on the profit margin made on the 
marketing/resale of airline tickets to EU destinations which were purchased from 
third-party taxable persons and sold to passengers who are natural persons. 
2 Those administrative and tax measures have been challenged in the present case. 
The respondent on appeal/applicant at first instance claims that, under the 
applicable national law, it may opt for the normal taxation arrangements for that 
activity. By contrast, according to the tax authorities, that activity is taxed under 
the special scheme for travel agents and the respondent on appeal/applicant at first 
instance cannot, in such a situation, opt for the application of the normal VAT 
arrangements. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
3 The parties argued that there was no need to make a request to the Court of Justice 
of the European Union (‘the Court’) for a preliminary ruling. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
4 In essence, the question of law which the referring court must answer is whether a 
travel agent may opt for the normal taxation arrangements for the activity of 
marketing/resale of airline tickets to EU destinations which have been purchased 
from third-party taxable persons and have been sold to passengers who are natural 
persons, or whether, on the contrary, it must, in such a case, apply the special 
scheme for travel agents. 
5 According to the referring court, clarification of that question of law involves not 
only the interpretation of the legal provisions of national law, but also ensuring an 
interpretation of national law in conformity with Directive 2006/112 in the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-763/23 
 
4  
particular case of the tax arrangements applicable to the activities carried out by 
travel agents. 
6 The parties have diametrically opposed views as to the tax regime applicable to 
the activity in question. All the parties agree, however, that the relevant tax regime 
is that of a resale buyer, and not that of an intermediary, since marketing to 
passengers takes place at a price which includes a surcharge in relation to the 
actual cost of purchasing airline tickets. 
7 According to the referring court, in order to clarify that dispute between the 
parties, it is necessary to interpret the provisions of national law in order to 
determine the situations in which the travel agent has a right to opt for the 
application of the normal tax arrangements (exemption with the right of deduction 
for VAT) or the application of the special VAT scheme (19% on the profit 
margin). However, before doing so, it is necessary to clarify whether or not 
Member States may adopt legal provisions derogating from the special scheme for 
travel agents established by Directive 2006/112. 
8 The referring court notes that it is also necessary to determine whether or not the 
service provided by the travel agent by means of reselling airline tickets purchased 
from third parties, to which it adds a surcharge, may be regarded as a single 
service, that is to say, whether or not the service provided by the applicant at first 
instance of reselling to passengers who are natural persons airline tickets 
purchased from other taxable persons is subject to the special VAT scheme 
applicable to travel agents, even if that service provision is not accompanied by 
additional services. 
9 According to the referring court, there is no consistent administrative practice or 
settled national case-law interpreting that issue in a certain way. 
10 Even if the provisions of Article 311(10) of the Tax Code could be interpreted as 
requiring the application of the special scheme for travel agents where the 
passenger is a natural person, paragraph 85(6) of the Detailed Rules lays down an 
exception allowing the option to apply the normal tax arrangements where 
transport of passengers is sold without other tourist services, a situation which 
raises the question of the compatibility of the provisions of national law with the 
special compulsory scheme for travel agents established by Directive 2006/112. 
11 The difficulty of ensuring interpretative consistency also arises from the fact that 
the text of the Detailed Rules was introduced into the legislation in order to ensure 
the implementation of the judgment of the Court in Case C-163/91 Van Ginkel, in 
which it was held that the provisions of Article 26 of the Sixth Council Directive 
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member 
States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform 
basis of assessment (‘Directive 77/388’) must be interpreted as meaning that the 
fact that the transport of the traveller is not arranged by a travel agent or a tour 
operator and that the latter merely provides the traveller with holiday 
DRAGORAM TOUR 
 
5 
accommodation is not such as to exclude the services provided by such 
undertakings from the field of application of Article 26 of that Directive. 
12 In that judgment, the Court pointed out that the provision of accommodation by a 
travel agent falls within the field of application of the special taxation scheme 
provided for in Article 26 of Directive 77/388, even if that service covers only 
accommodation and not also transport. As stated in paragraph 24 of that judgment, 
the fact that the travel agent provides only holiday accommodation for the 
traveller is not, in these circumstances, sufficient to exclude that service from the 
field of application of Article 26 of Directive 77/388. 
13 Furthermore, as the Court held in Case C-280/90 Hacker, the service provided by 
the agent, even if it is limited to the provision of accommodation, must not be 
reduced to a single service, since it could include, in addition to the letting of 
accommodation, services such as information and advice, in view of the fact that 
the travel agent provides a range of holiday offers and accommodation 
reservations. 
14 In its judgment in Case C-552/17 Alpenchalets Resorts, the Court held that 
Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the 
mere supply by a travel agent of holiday accommodation rented from other 
taxable persons or such a supply of a holiday residence combined with the supply 
of additional ancillary services, regardless of the importance of those ancillary 
services, each amount to a single service covered by the special scheme for travel 
agents and that Article 98(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as 
meaning that the supply of travel agent services consisting of the supply of 
holiday accommodation, covered by Article 307 of that directive, cannot be 
subject to a reduced tax rate or one of the reduced rates set out in Article 98(2). 
15 In Case C-108/22 Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej, the Court held that 
Article 306 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the service 
provided by a taxable person, which consists in purchasing accommodation 
services from other taxable persons and reselling them to other economic 
operators, is covered by the special VAT scheme applicable to travel agents, even 
though those services are not accompanied by ancillary services. 
16 According to the referring court, in so far as the service provided by the travel 
agent concerned, consisting of the purchase of airline tickets from other taxable 
persons and the resale of those tickets to passengers who are natural persons, is 
regarded as falling within the special VAT scheme applicable to travel agents, 
even if it is not accompanied by ancillary services, the question arises as to the 
compatibility of the national legislation with the objective of Directive 2006/112. 
17 From that perspective, it is necessary to clarify to what extent the transaction 
carried out by a travel agent for which international air transport of passenger 
services purchased from other taxable persons were used constitutes a single 
service supplied by a travel agent to a customer, which requires the taxable 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-763/23 
 
6  
amount to be determined by reference to the travel agent’s margin within the 
meaning of Articles 307 and 308 of Directive 2006/112. The tax authorities 
argued that the logging in to the reservation system, inserting the customer’s data, 
selecting the route, issuing the ticket and invoice, [and] printing the ticket were 
other tourist services covered by the concept of a single service, whereas the 
respondent on appeal/applicant at first instance argued that those operations were 
merely natural steps in the process of marketing airline tickets on external routes. 
18 Therefore, the question arises as to whether or not the travel agent’s service 
provision in that situation includes services such as information and advice in 
order to identify the offer most suited to the customer’s needs, as well as 
assistance to the customer in the purchase of transport (logging in to the 
reservation system, inserting the customer’s data, selecting the route, issuing the 
ticket and invoice, [and] printing the ticket), taking into account the fact that the 
travel agent provides a range of transport offers and that the specific nature of its 
activity consists of providing the customer with the option most suited to his or 
her needs. 
19 The referring court notes that the argument that the national legislation at issue is 
incompatible with Directive 2006/112 is also supported by specialists in law at 
prestigious universities in the country. 
20 At the same time, the referring court notes that the relevant case-law of the Court 
cited above concerns accommodation services purchased by other taxable persons 
and offered by travel agents, whereas the factual situation in the present case is 
different, in that it refers to the marketing of airline tickets purchased from other 
taxable persons for passengers who are natural persons. 
21 According to the referring court, there is also a significant difference between the 
factual situation in the dispute before it and that at issue in Case C-557/11 Kozak, 
in so far as in the present case the airline tickets offered for marketing are 
purchased from other taxable persons, whereas in Case C-557/11 the transport 
operations concerned were carried out without intermediaries, by travel agents 
acting in their own name. 
22 In the light of the Court’s ruling in Case C-31/10 Minerva Kulturreisen, the 
referring court notes that the services in the present case are not stand-alone, but 
concern transport transactions, unlike the services at issue in that case, which 
consisted of the sale of opera tickets by a travel agent, without a transaction 
relating to travel. 
23 According to the referring court, those differences give rise to uncertainty as to 
how to apply national law in a manner that is compatible with the objectives of 
Directive 2006/112. The way in which the provisions of Articles 306 to 308 of 
Directive 2006/112 are to be interpreted cannot be regarded as clear from the 
Court’s case-law, since the factual situations at issue in the judgments cited differ 
from the factual situation at issue in the present case. 
DRAGORAM TOUR 
 
7 
24 Consequently, the referring court considers that the interpretation of the 
provisions of Directive 2006/112 sought by the present request for a preliminary 
ruling is necessary in order to resolve the dispute before it and to ensure 
compliance with its obligation to interpret its national legislation in the light of the 
wording and objectives of that directive.