Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2001:54
Date: 2001-01-25
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Concepts: Place of supply of services;Refunds
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of 
value added tax — Supply of services — Determination of the place where taxable 
transactions are effected — Composite supply involving the disposal of waste — Refund 
of tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country — Refusal to 
refund where part of the work covered by the contract has been subcontracted by the 
taxable persons who are holders of a main contract and not established in the territory of 
the country to a taxable person who is established in the territory of the country — Not 
permissible 
(Council Directives 77/388, Art. 9(1), and 79/1072, Art. 2) 
I - 6 3 7 
SUMMARY — CASE C-429/97 
The connection of a composite supply 
taken as a whole with Article 9(1) of the 
Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisa­
tion of the laws of the Member States 
relating to turnover taxes, according to 
which the place where a service is supplied 
is to be deemed to be the place where the 
supplier has established his business or has 
a fixed establishment, or with the fourth 
indent of Article 9(2)(c), according to 
which the place of supply of services 
relating to work on movable tangible 
property is the place where those services 
are physically carried out, must be such as 
to ensure its rational and uniform taxation. 
Thus, where the holder of the main con­
tract for a composite supply of services 
relating to waste disposal has its business or 
a fixed establishment in a Member State, 
the services which it performs are deemed 
to be supplied in the first State, even if it 
entrusts the actual disposal of the waste to 
a subcontractor, who is a taxable person for 
the purposes of value added tax in another 
Member State, whilst paying the corre­
sponding VAT. Since the conditions to 
which the refund of value added tax is 
subject under the Eighth Directive 79/1072 
on the harmonisation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to turnover 
taxes — Arrangements for the refund of 
value added tax to taxable persons not 
established in the territory of the country 
are thus fulfilled, the main contractor is 
justified in subsequently claiming, on the 
basis of Article 2 of the Eighth Directive, 
the refund of the value added tax paid in 
that other Member State. 
Accordingly a Member State fails to fulfil 
its obligations under that Directive, in 
particular Article 2 thereof, by refusing to 
refund to taxable persons established in 
another Member State, who are holders of 
a main contract for a composite supply of 
services relating to waste disposal, the 
value added tax which they have been 
required to pay where they have subcon­
tracted part of the work covered by such a 
contract to a taxable person established in 
the territory of the country. 
(see paras 40, 53-54, and 
operative part 1) 
I - 6 3 8