Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2017:846
Date: 2017-11-09
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Poland

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 9 November 2017 Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Discretionary power of the Member States to apply a reduced rate to certain supplies of goods and services — Application of a reduced rate to certain foodstuffs — Pastry goods and cakes — National legislation laying down a reduced rate on the basis of the best before date or the use by date — Lawfulness — Condition — Compliance with the principle of neutrality — Criterion — Similarity of the goods or services — Verification a matter for the national court (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 98) Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding — provided that the principle of fiscal neutrality is complied with, which is for the referring court to ascertain — national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the application of the reduced VAT rate to fresh pastry goods and cakes depend solely on the criterion of their ‘best-before date’ or their ‘use-by date’. In this regard, it should be noted that Article 98(3) of the VAT Directive provides that Member States may use the CN when applying the reduced rates to categories of goods to establish the precise coverage of the category concerned. However, it must be noted that use of the CN is just one of a number of ways to establish the precise coverage of the category concerned. Thus, in so far as the criterion relating to a certain number of days of shelf life precisely defines the category concerned, it must be found that that selective application of the reduced VAT rate to a concrete and specific aspect of the goods included in one of the categories of Annex III is, in principle, compatible with Article 98 of the VAT Directive. However, in order to answer the question referred by the national court, it must be determined whether national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, infringes the principle of fiscal neutrality. It follows from settled case-law that that principle precludes similar goods or services which are in competition with each other being treated differently for VAT purposes (judgment of 11 September 2014, K, C‑219/13, EU:C:2014:2207, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited). As regards the assessment of the similarity of the goods or services concerned, which is ultimately a matter for the national court to determine, it is clear from the Court’s case-law that account must be taken primarily of the point of view of an average consumer. Goods or services are similar where they have similar characteristics and meet the same needs from the point of view of consumers, the test being whether their use is comparable, and where the differences between them do not have a significant influence on the decision of the average consumer to use one or other of those goods or services (judgment of 11 September 2014, K, C‑219/13, EU:C:2014:2207, paragraph 25). (see paras 25, 28-31, 36, operative part)