Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:T:2025:1081
Date: 2025-12-03
Language of the case: Slovenian
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Slovenia

Translation T-646/24 – 1 
Case T-646/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
28 November 2024 
Referring court: 
Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
21 November 2024 
Applicant: 
MS KLJUČAROVCI, d.o.o. – in liquidation 
Defendant: 
Republika Slovenija 
  
(omissis) 
REQUEST 
FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 
Administrative proceedings are pending before the Upravno sodišče Republike 
Slovenije [Administrative Court of the Slovenian Republic], brought by the MS 
KLJUČAROVCI, d.o.o. – in liquidation, (omissis) the applicant, against the 
Republika Slovenija [Slovenian Republic], the defendant, represented by the 
Ministrstvo za finance [Ministry of Finance], (omissis) relating to value added 
tax (VAT). 
The Upravno sodišče of the Slovenian Republic (omissis) suspended the decision 
on the action brought and decided to make a request for a preliminary ruling to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with Article 267 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’). 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 11. 2024 – CASE T-646/24 
 
2  
Statement of the facts 
1 The applicant is a commercial company registered in Slovenia for VAT purposes. 
During the period subject to the tax inspection, it acquired, on several occasions, 
soya seed and rapeseed presscakes and rapeseed oil from suppliers registered in 
Germany and then resold them to taxable persons in Denmark, that is, to the 
companies Agrotradeo4 ApS, Constantin Green Trans ApS and Crion Trade ApS, 
which, according to the assessments carried out by the Tax authority, are shell 
companies (‘missing traders’). The applicant indicated a Slovenian VAT 
identification number to the suppliers. The transportation of the goods from 
Germany directly to Denmark was organised and paid for by the applicant, which 
acted in the aforementioned transaction as second trader in the supply chain. The 
applicant reported the acquisitions of goods from the German suppliers and the 
subsequent delivery to the Danish taxable persons in its VAT return [in Slovenian: 
DDV-O] and in the recapitulative statement [in Slovenian: RP-O] in Slovenia. The 
applicant included the words ‘Reverse Charge of tax liability’ in its invoices made 
out to its customers. 1 In this way, it used administrative simplification that applies 
in connection with so-called triangular transactions and transferred tax liability to 
the person to whom the supply was made, thereby avoiding the obligation to 
register for VAT purposes in Denmark. 
2 The goods in question were transported from Germany directly to Denmark, but 
were not delivered to the Danish customers, that is, to the companies referred to in 
the previous paragraph, but rather to one of their own customers, acting as the 
subsequent operator in the supply chain in Denmark. The applicant, responsible 
for organising transportation, delivered the goods to the customer of the persons 
acquiring the goods, that is to the ANC Group, at different addresses in Denmark. 
It is apparent from the weighing sheets, which form part of the administrative file, 
that the goods were delivered to warehouses and mixing plants, where they were 
received, on behalf of the ANC Group company, by the various recipients, 
namely: Brødr Ewewrs A/S at the address Gl. Havn 6, Aabenraa, Emmelev A/S, 
at the address Emmelevgyden 2, Otterup, Hornsyld Købmandsgaard A/S, at the 
address Nørregade 28, Hornsyld, HK Fabrik Norsens, at the address Sondre Kaj 
14, Horsens, DLG at the address Industrivej 36, Skaerbaek, Brødr Ewewrs A/S at 
the address Langelandsvej 1, Toflund, Salling Grovvarer M.P. Stinsensvej 17, 
Roslev, Brødr Ewewrs A/S at the address Hojsetvej 6, Agerskov, Jens 
Holmegaard at the address Gamtoftevej 6, Assens, and Danish Inpection APS at 
the address Havnegade 47, Odense. 
3 The goods in question were therefore the subject of a single dispatch, or a single 
transport operation within the European Union, with three subsequent supplies. 
The supply chain was therefore as follows: German suppliers (German VAT 
identification number) – applicant company, with Slovenian VAT identification 
number – missing trader, Danish VAT identification number – ANC Group, 
      
1 ‘Reverse Charge’ clause pursuant to Article 226 of the VAT Directive. 
MS KLJUČAROVCI 
 
3 
Danish VAT identification number. However, the goods were physically 
conveyed from Germany directly to Denmark, to the last of the aforementioned 
companies or to warehouses/mixing plants in that company’s name. 
4 On the basis of Council Regulation (EU) of 7 October 2010, No 904/2010 on 
administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax 
(recast), the Slovenian Tax Authority requested information from the Danish tax 
office in order to ascertain whether the aforementioned Danish companies 
(persons acquiring the goods) had declared the acquisitions made from the 
applicant company and settled or paid the VAT, and whether they had actually 
taken possession of the goods. The Slovenian authority received information from 
the Danish office according to which the companies had not declared any 
acquisition of goods from the applicant, and had not settled or paid taxes due on 
those acquisitions, nor were there any reports certifying the receipt of the goods, 
in so far as they did not have either the commercial premises or storage capacity 
required. The VAT on the acquisitions was therefore not paid either in Denmark 
or in Slovenia. 
5 The tax authority therefore proceeded to ascertain whether circumstances had 
arisen demonstrating that the applicant was aware that it was participating in 
transactions aimed at the evasion of VAT. Those circumstances consist principally 
of the following: the places to which the goods were delivered were different, 
regardless of who was the final customer of the goods; the unusual means of 
payment, in so far as the invoices which the applicant made out to its own 
customer Crion Trade ApS were paid by a third person, that is, the company Get-
Reide ApS, which also settled a part of the invoices that the applicant had made 
out to the second Danish customer, that is, the company Constaton [sic] Green 
Trans Aps, and more precisely, on the basis of 25 contracts for the assumption of 
liability; the fact that the payments were not made at the time at which the supply 
took place and no down payments were made or warranties given, even though 
large sums of money were involved, thereby prompting the applicant to assume 
the full risk of default; the failure on the part of the applicant to assess the buyers 
(their solvency and references), who were newcomers to the market, which is not 
normal practice; the delay with which the DDV-O and RP-O calculations were 
submitted, which made it impossible for the tax authority to carry out immediate 
checks on the supplies, as those transactions were not entered in the VIES system 
correctly or in a timely manner; the conclusion of contracts with two intermediary 
operators through the buyer ANC Group. In fact, ANC Group held stakes in the 
companies Acasia’s Enterprise operating in the Seychelles and Flexon EOOD 
operating in Bulgaria (intermediary operators), which sought customers in the 
Denmark area on behalf of the applicant, activities for which the applicant paid 
them a sales commission. The applicant therefore concluded a contract with the 
two intermediary operators, through ANC Group, on the basis of which those two 
intermediary operators included additional figures in the supply chain (person C), 
that is the missing trader-type operators, which followed each other in the supply 
chain and to whom the applicant transferred liability to pay VAT. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 11. 2024 – CASE T-646/24 
 
4  
Decision taken by the Tax authority  
6 The Tax authority of the Slovenian Republic (‘Tax authority’) carried out a tax 
inspection at the applicant company of the calculations and payments relating to 
value added tax (VAT) for the years 2015 and 2016 and, in that context, 
quantified the VAT payable by the applicant for the two years at the total sum of 
EUR 1,802,408.04, calculated applying a tax rate of 9.5% or 22% to the taxable 
amount of EUR 17,295,787.40, together with default interest accrued totalling 
EUR 458,834.77. 
7 In the opinion of the Tax authority, the applicant was not entitled to apply the 
simplification for triangular transactions provided for in Article 23 or Article 48 of 
the Zakon o davku na dodano vrednost [value added tax law] (ZDDV-1), read in 
conjunction with Article 27 of the regulation implementing that law, in so far as 
more than two supplies of goods had been carried out in a single transport 
operation. In that context, the Tax authority did not question the place at which the 
supply was made, but rather the fact that, with the delivery of the goods to the 
customer of the persons acquiring the goods, the goods were not made available 
(in terms of ownership or possession) to the third person in the supply chain. For 
that reason, the place in which the acquisitions made by the applicant are taxed is, 
according to Article 23(2) of ZDDV-1 (or the first paragraph of Article 41 of the 
VAT Directive) in the State of identification for VAT purposes, that is, Slovenia. 
If the applicant were to demonstrate that that acquisition had been taxed in 
Denmark, it would be able to apply the corrective mechanism referred to in 
article 23(3) of ZDDV-1 (the second paragraph of Article 41 of the VAT 
Directive), provided however that it had not intentionally participated in VAT 
evasion. 2 It is this very aspect that must also be assessed in the present case, in so 
far as the transaction was carried out as part of a supply chain which remained 
identical at all times, whilst only non-paying traders participated, one after the 
other, in place of person C. 
8 The Finance Ministry, acting as the administrative body at second instance, 
rejected the administrative action brought by the applicant as unfounded and 
confirmed the grounds put forward by the Tax authority for the purposes of 
calculating VAT. 
Administrative proceedings 
9 The taxable person (the applicant) then brought a judicial action against the 
decision of the Tax authority before the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije 
(Administrative Court of the Slovenian Republic), seeking the annulment of the 
ruling at first instance. In its application, it contests the argument that the present 
case does not involve genuine triangular transactions. It claims that the 
simplification for genuine triangular transactions may also be applied to three 
      
2 According to the meaning explained by the CJEU in the judgment of 18 December 2014, 
Italmoda, C-131/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2455. 
MS KLJUČAROVCI 
 
5 
taxable persons, one following the other, forming part of a longer chain (for 
example, four or more taxable persons), if the conditions laid down for that 
simplification are met, and, more precisely, in the case in which the place where 
the goods were supplied (conclusion of the transportation) is situated in the State 
of identification of the direct customer of the goods. The fact that the goods are 
delivered in the customer’s country to another person (to the fourth in the supply 
chain or to a warehouse which accepts delivery of them on his behalf, and not to 
the direct customer, that is, the third person in the chain) does not affect the 
fulfilment of the requirements for the definition of triangular transactions. 
Consequently, the Slovenian Tax authority does not have jurisdiction to assess the 
actions of the applicant, whilst the transactions described, by contrast, are taxable 
in Denmark. It is only when the State, in which dispatch of the goods ends 
(Denmark), refuses to apply Article 141 of the VAT Directive that the State of 
identification (Slovenia) can, in the applicant’s view, tax the acquisition made by 
the Slovenian taxable person, on the basis of Article 41 of the VAT Directive. 
10 The defendant does not share that view and contends that the present case does not 
involve genuine triangular transactions, on the ground that more than two supplies 
of goods were carried out within a single dispatch (Germany – Denmark). In that 
context, the fulfilment of the requirements for triangular transactions is not 
contingent upon the delivery of the goods to the premises of the third person in the 
supply chain; however the defendant claims that the goods must, when transport 
of the goods ends, be made available to the third person (in terms of ownership), 
who is liable to pay the VAT due. In the case in question, the applicant satisfies 
those conditions if the warehouse or the mixing plant has received the goods in the 
name and on behalf of the applicant’s customer (the third person in the supply 
chain), but not in the name of the fourth person in that chain. It also claims the 
administrative in simplification for genuine triangular transactions constitutes an 
exception in the VAT system, which must be interpreted restrictively. 
11 The Upravno sodišče must, in the light of the complaints contained in the 
application, assess whether genuine triangular transactions have taken place and 
whether the conditions for the application of administrative simplification, fixed 
under article 41 and, read in conjunction with Articles 42 and 197 of the VAT 
Directive, have been fulfilled. To this end, that court also refers the questions 
raised to the Court of Justice. In the event that, on the basis of the answer form the 
Court to the questions raised, the Upravno sodišče considers the conditions laid 
down in the aforementioned provisions of the VAT Directive to have been met, it 
will then proceed to assess also the question of whether the applicant was aware 
that it was participating in an abuse of the VAT system and whether, on that basis, 
the applicant can be charged the additional tax. The third question referred for a 
preliminary ruling is dedicated to that aspect. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 11. 2024 – CASE T-646/24 
 
6  
Relevant legislative provisions  
12 At EU level, in order to reduce the complexity of proceedings involving more than 
one supply by different suppliers, the situation of three enterprises from three 
different Member States that trade in goods that are transported directly from the 
first to the last enterprise was dealt with by introducing special rules governing so-
called triangular transactions (genuine) within the European Union, through 
Article 141, read in conjunction with articles 42 and 197 of Council Directive 
2006/112/CE of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax 
(‘the VAT Directive’; OJ L 347, of 11.12.2006, p. 1). 
13 Article 40 of the directive reads as follows: 
The place of an intra-Community acquisition of goods shall be deemed to be the 
place where dispatch or transport of the goods to the person acquiring them ends. 
14 Article 41 of the directive reads as follows: 
Without prejudice to Article 40, the place of an intra-Community acquisition of 
goods as referred to in Article 2(1)(b)(i) shall be deemed to be within the territory 
of the Member State which issued the VAT identification number under which the 
person acquiring the goods made the acquisition, unless the person acquiring the 
goods establishes that VAT has been applied to that acquisition in accordance 
with Article 40. 
If VAT is applied to the acquisition in accordance with the first paragraph and 
subsequently applied, pursuant to Article 40, to the acquisition in the Member 
State in which dispatch or transport of the goods ends, the taxable amount shall be 
reduced accordingly in the Member State which issued the VAT identification 
number under which the person acquiring the goods made the acquisition. 
15 Article 42 of the directive reads as follows: 
The first paragraph of Article 41 shall not apply and VAT shall be deemed to have 
been applied to the intra-Community acquisition of goods in accordance with 
Article 40 where the following conditions are met: 
(a) the person acquiring the goods establishes that he has made the intra-
Community acquisition for the purposes of a subsequent supply, within the 
territory of the Member State identified in accordance with Article 40, for which 
the person to whom the goods are supplied has been designated in accordance 
with Article 197 as liable for payment of VAT; 
(b) the person acquiring the goods has satisfied the obligations laid down in 
Article 265 relating to submission of the recapitulative statement. 
16 Article 141 of the directive reads as follows: 
MS KLJUČAROVCI 
 
7 
Each Member State shall take specific measures to ensure that VAT is not charged 
on the intra-Community acquisition of goods within its territory, made in 
accordance with Article 40, where the following conditions are met: 
(a) the acquisition of goods is made by a taxable person who is not established 
in the Member State concerned, but is identified for VAT purposes in another 
Member State; 
(b) the acquisition of goods is made for the purposes of the subsequent supply 
of those goods, in the Member State concerned, by the taxable person referred to 
in point (a); 
(c) the goods thus acquired by the taxable person referred to in point (a) are 
directly dispatched or transported, from a Member State other than that in which 
he is identified for VAT purposes, to the person for whom he is to carry out the 
subsequent supply; 
(d) the person to whom the subsequent supply is to be made is another taxable 
person, or a non-taxable legal person, who is identified for VAT purposes in the 
Member State concerned; 
(e) the person referred to in point (d) has been designated in accordance with 
Article 197 as liable for payment of the VAT due on the supply carried out by the 
taxable person who is not established in the Member State in which the tax is due. 
17 Article 197 of the directive reads as follows: 
VAT shall be payable by the person to whom the goods are supplied when the 
following conditions are met: 
(a) the taxable transaction is a supply of goods carried out in accordance with 
the conditions laid down in Article 141; 
(b) the person to whom the goods are supplied is another taxable person, or a 
non-taxable legal person, identified for VAT purposes in the Member State in 
which the supply is carried out; 
18 (c) the invoice issued by the taxable person not established in the Member 
State of the person to whom the goods are supplied is drawn up in accordance 
with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Chapter 3. 
National law 
19 At national level, the Zakon o davku na dodano vrednost (ZDDV-1) and the 
Pravilnik o izvajanju Zakona o davku na dodano vrednost [regulation 
implementing the law on value added tax] are relevant to the decision. 
20 Article 23 of the ZDDV-1 reads as follows 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 11. 2024 – CASE T-646/24 
 
8  
(1) The place of an intra-Community acquisition of goods shall be deemed to be 
the place where the goods are situated at the time dispatch or transport of the 
goods to the person acquiring them ends. 
(2) Without prejudice to point 1 of this article, the place of an intra-Community 
acquisition of goods shall be deemed to be within the territory of the Member 
State which issued the VAT identification number under which the person 
acquiring the goods made the acquisition, unless that person acquiring the goods 
establishes that VAT has been applied to that acquisition in another Member State 
in accordance with point 1 of this article. 
(3) If VAT is applied to the acquisition in accordance with point 2 of this article 
and subsequently applied in the Member State in which dispatch or transport of 
the goods ends, the taxable amount shall be reduced accordingly in the Member 
State which issued the VAT identification number under which the person 
acquiring the goods made the acquisition. 
(4) Without prejudice to point 2 of this article, VAT shall be deemed to have 
been applied to the acquisition of goods in accordance with point 1 of this article 
if the person acquiring the goods: 
(a) establishes that he has carried out the intra-Community acquisition for the 
purposes of a subsequent supply, which took place within the territory of another 
Member State identified in accordance with point 1 of this article, for which the 
person to whom the goods are supplied has been designated as liable for payment 
of VAT, and 
(b) has satisfied the obligations relating to submission of the recapitulative 
statement. 
21 Article 48(2) of the ZDDV-1 reads as follows: 
In the case of the acquisition of goods within the European Union taking place in 
Slovenian territory in accordance with point 1 of Article 23 of this law, VAT shall 
not be applied when the following conditions are met: 
(a) the acquisition of goods is carried out by a taxable person who is not 
established in Slovenia, but is identified for VAT purposes in another Member 
State; 
(b) the acquisition of goods is carried out for the purposes of the subsequent 
supply of those goods, in Slovenian territory by the taxable person referred to in 
point (a); 
(c) the goods thus acquired by the taxable person referred to in point (a) are 
directly dispatched or transported, from a Member State other than that in which 
he is identified for VAT purposes, to the person for whom he is to carry out the 
subsequent supply; 
MS KLJUČAROVCI 
 
9 
(d) the person to whom the subsequent supply is to be made is another taxable 
person, or a non-taxable legal person, who is however identified for VAT 
purposes in Slovenia, and 
(e) the person to whom the supply is to be made is obliged to pay VAT, in 
accordance with Article 76(1)(4) of this law, on the subsequent supply of goods 
carried out in Slovenian territory by the taxable person referred to in point (a) of 
this paragraph. 
22 Article 76(1)(4) of the ZDDV-1 reads as follows: 
VAT shall be payable […] by the person to whom the goods are supplied when 
the following conditions are met: 
– the taxable transaction is a supply of goods carried out in accordance with 
the conditions laid down in Article 48(2) of this law; 
– the person to whom the goods are supplied is another taxable person, or a 
non-taxable legal person, identified for VAT purposes in Slovenia, and 
– the invoice issued by the taxable person not established in Slovenia is drawn 
up in accordance with this law. 
23 In the Slovenian legal system, the definition of triangular transactions is contained 
in a regulation and not in the ZDDV-1. More specifically, Article 27 of the 
Pravilnik o izvajanju Zakona o davku na dodano vrednost [regulation 
implementing the law on value added tax] establishes as follows: 
Triangular transactions are chain transactions in which three taxable persons take 
part, each identified for VAT purposes in his own Member State. The taxable 
person/supplier of merchandise in a Member State issues an invoice for the supply 
of goods within the Union made out to the taxable person/person acquiring the 
goods in another Member State for goods that are dispatched directly or 
transported to the taxable person/person to whom the goods are supplied in a third 
Member State. 
Question of interpretation regarding Article 141 of the VAT Directive, read 
in conjunction with Articles 41, 42 and 197 of that Directive. 
24 According to case-law of the Court, 3 triangular transactions are a particular type 
of chain supply involving three taxable persons whereby two supplies of goods are 
carried out in succession, of which only one is deemed to be an exempt supply of 
goods within the Union. Person A is the supplier, person B the customer and the 
supplier, and person C the customer. Article 141 of the VAT Directive relieves the 
intermediary operator from the obligation to register in the State of destination. 
      
3 Judgment of 19 April 2018, Firma Hans Bühler KG, C-580/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:261. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 11. 2024 – CASE T-646/24 
 
10  
That result is obtained by providing that the taxable person is not obliged to 
calculate VAT there, either on the acquisition within the Union (article 141, first 
sentence) or on the supply of goods he has carried out, as article 197 establishes 
that the person to whom the goods are supplied under that (second) supply 
becomes the person liable to pay VAT. Accordingly, therefore, tax liability passes 
to the person to whom the goods are supplied, that is, the third element in the 
chain. 
25 In the present case, it was not three parties or three persons who took part in the 
supply chain, but four, registered in three different Member States. There was 
only one transport operation, carried out directly to the fourth person in the chain 
(who had the power to dispose of the goods, as owner), or to a warehouse or a 
mixing plant on his behalf. In the light of the circumstances described, the 
Upravno sodišče raises the question of the correct application of the provisions 
regarding the place of supply of the goods, a question on which liability to VAT in 
Slovenia depends, in conjunction with the rules on triangular transactions 
currently in force. For the purposes of the application of administrative 
simplification, envisaged for triangular transactions, all the conditions laid down 
in Article 23(4), Article 48(2) and Article 76(1)(4) of the ZDDV-1, through which 
Articles 42, 141 or 197 of the VAT Directive were transposed into the legal 
system of the Slovenian Republic, must be met under national law. The correct 
interpretation of the ZDDV-1 therefore depends entirely on the correct 
interpretation of the above-mentioned provisions of the VAT Directive. 
26 The first question relates to the relationship between Articles 42 and 41 of the 
VAT Directive. The Upravno sodišče takes the view that, also in the case of a 
chain transaction involving four parties, the transactions involving the (first) three 
persons could lead to a triangular simplification in the sense envisaged in the VAT 
Directive, when the conditions laid down in that Directive are met. The final 
transaction in the supply chain could be considered as a subsequent supply that 
does not form part of the triangular transaction. According to the understanding of 
the referring court, the subsequent supply of goods following the triangular 
transaction pursuant to Article 141 of the VAT Directive does not, in principle, 
affect the fulfilment, on the part of person B, of the requirements for the 
application of simplification. 
27 It is not clear, from the VAT Directive, whether what person C intends to do with 
the goods (for example, to sell them, on its part) is of importance to the 
intermediate operator. In fact, Article 141(c) of the VAT Directive, to which the 
other two matters raised by the Upravno sodišče in essence refer, lays down that 
the goods in question, which were acquired within the Union, must be directly 
dispatched or transported, from a Member State other than that in which the 
customer is identified for VAT purposes, to the person for whom he is to carry out 
the subsequent supply; On the basis of the wording of the aforementioned article, 
it is therefore essential that person B dispatches the goods from the Member State 
A directly to the Member State C. Taking into account the wording ‘to the person 
for whom he is to carry out the subsequent supply’ [in the official Slovenian 
MS KLJUČAROVCI 
 
11 
version: «je namenjeno prejemniku nadaljnje dobave»] it is however unclear 
whether the third person in the transaction chain is obliged to actually accept the 
goods (in the sense that they are made available to him), or whether the condition 
stated in Article 141(c) of the VAT Directive is satisfied even in the case of a 
direct supply to the customer of the person acquiring the goods or to a warehouse 
managed by a third person on his behalf, which is what occurred in the present 
case. 
28 There is no case-law of the Court of Justice on the question described above. The 
referring court is familiar, for example, with the judgments of the Court of 
19 April 2018, Firma Hans Bühler KG, C-580/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:261, and 
8 December 2022, Luxury Trust Automobil GmbH, C-247/21, 
ECLI:EU:C:2022:966, and also with the Explanatory notes on the EU VAT 
changes in respect of call-off stock arrangements, chain transactions and the 
exemption for intra-Community supplies of goods (‘2020 Quick Fixes’), 4 which 
also deal, among others, with the question of the subsequent supply of the goods 
following the triangular transaction (p. 67 of the Slovenian version of the 
Explanatory notes). The two aforementioned judgements however refer to the 
formal conditions underlying the application of the administrative simplification 
regime (contents of the invoices or the recapitulative statement), which, in the 
present case, have been met, whilst the explanatory notes refer to the 
interpretation of Article 36a of the VAT Directive, which, at the time the 
transactions in question took place (in the year 2015 or 2016) was not yet in force. 
As the Upravno sodišče takes the view that the substantial conditions for the 
application of the simplification of triangular transactions is open to different 
interpretations, it is important, for the sake of the uniform application of EU law, 
that the Court of Justice make a preliminary ruling on the questions raised. 
29 Depending on the answer given to the first two questions raised, the 
Administrative Court refers a third question, which relates to the correct taxation 
of the transaction in the present case, when the conditions for the application of 
administrative simplification have been met, but it emerges that the applicant has 
intentionally participated in fraudulent transactions. That referring court raises, 
above all, a question relating to the alleged (lack of) competence of the Slovenian 
tax authority, when establishing that such a participation in an abuse of the VAT 
system has taken place, to charge the applicant with the tax applying the rule 
regarding the place of taxation laid down in the first paragraph of Article 41 of the 
VAT Directive. 
      
4 Explanatory Notes of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs 
Union, published in December 2019, which may be consulted on the Commission website page. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 11. 2024 – CASE T-646/24 
 
12  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
30 In light of the foregoing, the Upravno sodišče refers the following questions to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, pursuant to 
article 267 TFEU: 
1. Must Article 141(c) of the VAT Directive, on which, in accordance with 
Articles 42 and 197 thereof, the non-application of the first paragraph of 
Article 41 depends, be interpreted as meaning that the condition laid down 
in that provision is satisfied when the goods in question are supplied (that is, 
made available in terms of possession or ownership) under a single transport 
operation to the customer of the person acquiring the goods (and not to the 
third person in the transaction chain), which is registered for VAT purposes 
in the same Member State as the third person in the transaction chain? 
2. In order to satisfy the condition laid down in article 141(c) of the VAT 
Directive, is the fact that the person claiming simplification for triangular 
transactions is aware of the subsequent supply relevant? 
Depending on the answer given to the two aforementioned questions, the Upravno 
sodišče t refers the third question, namely: 
3. In the circumstances arising in the present case, must the first paragraph of 
Article 41 of the VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that VAT may be 
paid in the State of identification of the taxable person who is second in the 
transaction chain (in Slovenia), bearing in mind that, in that context, that 
taxable amount is not reduced in accordance with the second paragraph of 
Article 41 of that Directive when it is established that the taxable person 
knew or should have known that he was participating in transactions 
amounting to an abuse of the VAT system? 
Ljubljana, 21 November 2024 
(omissis)