Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:501
Date: 2024-06-13
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-533/22 – 1 
Case C-533/22 
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: 
9 August 2022 
Referring court: 
Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
10 June 2021 
Applicant: 
SC Adient Ltd & Co. KG 
Defendants: 
Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală 
Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală – Direcția Generală 
Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești – Administrația Județeană a 
Finanțelor Publice Argeș 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action brought by SC Adient Ltd & Co. KG seeking annulment of the decision of 
4 June 2020 concerning its automatic registration for tax purposes through a fixed 
establishment located in Romania, issued by the Direcția Generală Regională a 
Finanțelor Publice Ploiești (Regional Directorate-General of Public Finances, 
Ploiești; ‘DGRFP Ploiești’) – Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Argeș 
(County Public Finance Administration, Argeș; ‘AJFP Argeș’), and of the 
decision of 28 August 2020, issued by DGRFP Ploiești, rejecting as unfounded 
the complaint brought against the decision regarding that automatic registration 
for tax purposes 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-533/22 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
On the basis of Article 267 TFEU, an interpretation is sought of Article 44 and 
Article 192a(b) of Directive 2006/112, as well as Articles 10 and 11 of 
Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 and Article 53(2) thereof. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Are the provisions of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common 
system of value added tax and of Articles 10 and 11 of Council Implementing 
Regulation No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for [that directive] 
to be interpreted as precluding the practice of a national tax authority whereby an 
independent resident legal person is classified as the fixed establishment of a non-
resident entity solely on the basis that the two companies belong to the same 
group? 
2. Are the provisions of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common 
system of value added tax and of Articles 10 and 11 of Council Implementing 
Regulation No 282/2011 implementing [that directive] to be interpreted as 
precluding the practice of a national tax authority whereby it is considered, by 
reference only to the services supplied to a non-resident entity by a resident legal 
person, that a fixed establishment of a non-resident entity exists within the 
territory of a Member State? 
3. Are the provisions of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common 
system of value added tax and of Articles 10 and 11 of Council Implementing 
Regulation No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for [that directive] 
to be interpreted as precluding tax legislation and the practice of a national tax 
authority whereby it is considered that a fixed establishment of a non-resident 
entity exists within the territory of a Member State, given that that fixed 
establishment supplies only goods and not services? 
4. Where a non-resident person has, within the territory of a Member State, 
human and technical resources within a resident legal person which are used to 
ensure the supply of services whereby goods are manufactured – goods which are 
to be supplied by the non-resident entity – are the provisions of Article 192a(b) of 
Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax and of 
Article 11 and Article 53(2) of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 
laying down implementing measures for [that directive] to be interpreted as 
meaning that those manufacturing services supplied by means of the technical and 
human resources of the non-resident legal person are: (i) services received by the 
non-resident legal person from the resident person by means of those human and 
technical resources, or, as the case may be, (ii) services provided by the non-
resident legal person itself by means of those human and technical resources? 
5. Depending on the answer to Question 4, how is the place of supply of 
services to be determined with reference to the provisions of Article 44 of 
ADIENT 
 
3 
Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax and of 
Articles 10 and 11 of Council Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 laying down 
implementing measures for [that directive]? 
6. In the light of Article 53(2) of Council Implementing Regulation 
No 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for [Directive 2006/112/EC on 
the common system of value added tax], should activities linked to the treatment 
of goods, such as taking delivery, recording inventory, placing orders with 
suppliers, providing storage areas, managing inventory in the IT system, 
processing customer orders, indicating the address on transport documents and 
invoices, providing quality control support, and so on, be disregarded when 
determining the existence of a fixed establishment, given that they are ancillary 
administrative activities which are strictly necessary for the manufacture of the 
goods? 
7. In view of the principles relating to the place of taxation as the place where 
final consumption takes place, is it relevant for determining the place of supply of 
the manufacturing services that the goods resulting from those services are mostly 
(intended to be) sold outside Romania, while those sold in Romania are subject to 
VAT, and therefore the result of the services is not ‘consumed’ in Romania or, if 
it is ‘consumed’ in Romania, it is subject to VAT? 
8. Where the technical and human resources of the fixed establishment 
receiving the services are virtually the same as those of the provider through 
whom the services are actually performed, is there still a supply of services for the 
purposes of Article 2(1)(c) of [Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of 
value added tax]? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of 
value added tax 
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying 
down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system 
of value added tax 
Cases C-190/95, ARO Lease; C-260/95, DFDS; C-51/88, Hamann; C-73/06, 
Planzer Luxembourg; [and] C-547/18, Dong Yang Electronics 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Legea nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal (Law No 227/2015 establishing the Tax 
Code): Article 266(2)(b), which provides that ‘a taxable person who has 
established his, her or its business outside Romania shall be deemed to be 
established in Romania if he, she or it has a fixed establishment in Romania, in 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-533/22 
 
4  
particular if he, she or it has sufficient technical and human resources in Romania 
to make regular taxable supplies of goods and/or services’, and Article 278(2), 
which transposes Article 44 of Directive 2006/112 and defines the place of supply 
of services as, inter alia, ‘the place where the fixed establishment of the person 
receiving the services is located’ 
Normele metodologice de aplicare a Legii nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal 
(Rules for applying Law No 227/2015 establishing the Tax Code): point 1(6) and 
point 14(2), which explain the abovementioned provisions of [that law] 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The Adient group has its head office in Europe; the main company in that group is 
Adient Ltd & Co. KG Germany. The group is a global supplier to leading 
manufacturers in the automotive industry. It has a global network of 
manufacturing and assembly facilities which supply complete seating systems, 
modules and components to original equipment manufacturers. 
2 On 1 June 2016, Adient Ltd & Co. KG entered into a contract with SC Adient 
Automotive România SRL (‘Adient România’) to provide a comprehensive 
service consisting of both the manufacture and assembly of upholstery 
components, as well as ancillary and administrative services. The manufacturing 
services consist of cutting and sewing raw materials to make car seat covers, while 
the ancillary services include storing raw materials and finished products, taking 
delivery of, inspecting and managing raw materials, and so on. 
3 All expenses incurred by Adient România in order to ensure that those activities 
are carried out are included in the manufacturing fee invoiced to Adient Ltd & Co. 
KG. The latter purchases the raw material which it sends to Adient România (to 
the upholstery branches of Adient România in Pitești and Ploiești, known as 
TRIM) for treatment. Adient Ltd & Co. KG is the legal owner of the raw 
materials, semi-finished products and finished products throughout the treatment 
process. 
4 In view of the transactions carried out in Romania, Adient Ltd & Co. KG, a non-
resident person with its registered office in Germany, was directly registered for 
VAT purposes in Romania as of 16 March 2016 and was assigned a VAT number, 
which the company uses to carry out taxable transactions in Romanian territory. 
5 Adient Ltd & Co. KG uses the VAT number assigned by the Romanian authorities 
both for domestic and intra-Community purchases and for supplies to its 
customers of the products manufactured by the TRIM branches of Adient 
România. For other services rendered by Adient România under the contract 
(manufacturing, assembly, storage and administrative services), it provided the 
VAT number assigned by the German authorities so as to be invoiced for the 
manufacturing services without VAT, since those services are considered taxable 
in the Member State in which the company is established. 
ADIENT 
 
5 
6 Following a tax inspection carried out at Adient România, which concerned value 
added tax for the period from 18 February 2016 to 31 July 2018, AJFP Argeș 
found that that company had recorded and declared revenue from intra-
Community supplies of services to Adient Ltd & Co. KG Germany totalling 
724 929 735 Romanian lei (RON). These consisted of manufacturing services for 
upholstery components; transactions for which the company being inspected 
considered the place of supply to be the place of establishment of the recipient of 
the services – namely Germany. 
7 AJFP Argeș concluded that Adient România was required to collect VAT on 
supplies of services to Adient Ltd & Co. KG, since it considered the place of 
supply of those services to be in Romania, and so the reverse charge provisions 
did not apply. It also found that Adient Ltd & Co. KG had technical and human 
resources in Romania through the TRIM Pitești and TRIM Ploiești branches, with 
the result that it satisfied the conditions for a fixed establishment for VAT 
purposes in Romania. Consequently, the services in question are subject to VAT 
in Romania and Adient România is required by law to collect VAT. 
8 On 29 March 2019, AJFP Argeș issued a decision by which it imposed additional 
payment obligations on Adient România totalling RON 139 744 797. Adient 
România contested the decision before the Agenția Națională de Administrare 
Fiscală (national tax administration agency; ‘ANAF’). The complaint was rejected 
as unfounded by decision of 30 January 2020. On 10 July 2020, in separate 
proceedings, Adient România challenged the decision disposing of the complaint 
and the decision imposing additional payment obligations before the Curtea de 
Apel Pitești (Court of Appeal, Pitești, Romania); the action was dismissed at first 
instance. The applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment, which is currently 
pending before the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and 
Justice, Romania). 
9 The tax inspection team decided that the transactions in question – despite the 
formal application of the conditions laid down by the statutory provisions – had 
given rise to tax advantages by reducing the VAT liability in the period under 
review. This was contrary to the spirit of those statutory provisions and thus 
constituted an abuse. Likewise, they found that the VAT number issued by the 
German authorities had been improperly used. 
10 In accordance with the applicable statutory provisions (Article 11(12) of Law 
No 227/2015 establishing the Tax Code), when an abuse exists, the transactions 
involved must be redefined so as to re-establish the situation that would have 
existed in the absence of the transactions that constituted an abuse. Therefore, 
following the tax inspection carried out at Adient România, AJFP Argeș found 
that Adient Ltd & Co. KG Germany, a contractual partner of the company being 
inspected and directly registered for VAT purposes in Romania, had sufficient 
technical and human resources to have fixed establishments in Romania, in 
accordance with the provisions of Article 266(2)(b) of Law No 227/2015 
establishing the Tax Code. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-533/22 
 
6  
11 By decision of 4 June 2020, Adient Ltd & Co. KG was automatically registered 
for tax purposes, through a fixed establishment located in Romania, at an address 
in the city of Pitești which was virtually identical to the address of the TRIM 
Pitești branch of Adient România. The applicant lodged a complaint against that 
decision with DGRFP Ploiești, which, by decision of 28 August 2020, rejected the 
complaint as unfounded. 
12 The applicant submits that the defendants’ decisions are unlawful on account of 
the misinterpretation and misapplication of tax legislation and in view of the facts 
of the present case, arguing that the legal and case-law requirements for 
considering the provisions of Article 266(2) of [Law No 227/2015 establishing] 
the Tax Code applicable have not been met. 
13 It relies on several judgments of the Court of Justice (Cases C-190/95, ARO 
Lease; C-260/95, DFDS; C-51/88, Hamann; C-73/06, Planzer Luxembourg; [and] 
C-547/18, Dong Yang Electronics) and states that, in relation to the arguments 
accepted by the Court, the tax authorities’ arguments that the classification of 
Adient România as a fixed establishment of Adient Ltd & Co. KG is acceptable 
are invalid, since Adient România was strictly limited to the role of manufacturer 
and thus had no decision-making powers. 
14 The applicant submits that DGRFP Ploiești – AJFP Argeș was incorrect in stating 
that the duties and responsibilities of staff employed in Adient România’s quality 
department were not only confined to those derived from the quality control of the 
manufacturing process (inspecting the raw materials on delivery, work in progress 
and final products), but also entailed communication with customers/suppliers of 
Adient Ltd & Co. KG (Adient România receives, analyses, responds to, and takes 
corrective action concerning customer complaints, manages and compiles 
customer reports in the database, makes periodic visits to customers’ premises, 
participates in meetings at the product launch or product update stage, obtains data 
and information from suppliers, prepares monitoring plans for the products 
received, and so on). Adient România is not acting on behalf of Adient Ltd & Co. 
KG when it responds to complaints about quality; whether the response is sent to 
Adient Ltd & Co. KG or directly to the customer, Adient România has an 
obligation as the manufacturer, since it is directly involved in the manufacturing 
service performed. 
15 The applicant claims that the additional VAT charged to Adient România was 
unlawful, since Adient Ltd & Co. KG does not satisfy the conditions for having a 
fixed establishment in Romania; nor does it have its own human and technical 
resources within Adient România. 
16 The applicant further submits that, owing to the large volume of business and 
thanks to developments in information technology, raw materials and other 
materials received for treatment are recorded electronically directly in the 
accounting system of Adient Ltd & Co. KG; they are not entered in a physical 
ledger and sent to the German company for accounting purposes. Adient România 
ADIENT 
 
7 
uses the QAD logistics/management system not in order to ensure that Adient Ltd 
& Co. KG has the technical resources it needs in Romania, as ANAF incorrectly 
suggests, but because the two companies are affiliated and have the same 
accounting system, according to which the relevant assets belong to Adient Ltd & 
Co. KG but are physically located in Romania. Therefore, some individuals have 
access to the IT applications in order to perform those transactions, although not 
all employees have access to the electronic systems. Access is granted according 
to the specific duties of each individual, as assigned to them by their line manager 
and by the manager/director of the Adient România facility. 
17 Adient România does not produce in its own name any documentation concerning 
the treated products belonging to Adient Ltd & Co. KG; any certification in 
relation to those goods is recorded directly in the accounting system of Adient Ltd 
& Co. KG. Whether the goods received for manufacturing are recorded in paper 
or electronic format – which is the manufacturer’s responsibility – the tax 
inspection team unfairly bases its line of argument on the form rather than the 
substance of the transaction. 
18 As far as human resources are concerned, these do not belong to Adient Ltd & Co. 
KG in Romania; numerous explanations to that effect were submitted to the tax 
authorities, which failed to take them into consideration. Employees have a 
contractual relationship with Adient România; the terms of their employment and 
their pay are negotiated with that company. Adient România decides on the 
duration of employment contracts and the number of employees required, and it is 
for Adient România to terminate such contracts. 
19 The applicant submits that another argument put forward by the tax authorities to 
demonstrate that it has human resources in Romania is that employees in Adient 
România’s logistics department are involved in the actual supply of the goods and 
supplies are recorded directly in the accounting system of Adient Ltd & Co. KG. 
They also place shipping orders when the carrier is Adient Ltd & Co. KG. 
20 The applicant maintains that, in reality, it supplies the finished products. Placing 
the shipping order is merely an administrative task which involves sending the 
information to the carrier, since, for objective reasons, the manufacturer needs to 
prepare the goods for loading and, naturally, must work with the carrier to ensure 
that they are delivered on time. 
21 In addition, the activities of the Romanian TRIM units are predominantly aimed at 
ensuring compliance with the manufacturing agreement, while the other activities 
are of an administrative nature (conveying information regarding matters 
previously agreed between Adient Ltd & Co. KG and its suppliers/customers). 
Adient România’s employees have no decision-making powers regarding the 
actual sale/purchase of the goods by Adient Ltd & Co. KG. Moreover, they are 
not involved in the supply of finished products and are not entitled to make 
decisions about the quantities, prices or parties involved. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-533/22 
 
8  
22 As for the technical resources, the applicant claims that it does not have access to 
Adient România’s technical resources. Specifically, Adient Ltd & Co. KG does 
not choose which equipment should be used for the manufacturing activity; nor 
does it decide on the timing of equipment maintenance, replacement or 
modernisation. In short, it has no decision-making powers regarding the technical 
resources available at the Adient România site. 
23 DGRFP Ploiesti, represented by AJFP Argeș, lodged a defence, requesting that the 
action be dismissed as unfounded for the various reasons set out below. 
24 From the documents analysed by the tax inspection authorities during the partial 
tax inspection carried out at Adient România, it was found that Adient Ltd & Co. 
KG Germany has the necessary human and technical resources to carry out regular 
taxable transactions in Romania. 
25 With regard to human resources, employees in Adient România’s logistics 
department communicate with the customers/suppliers of Adient Ltd & Co. KG 
and receive orders placed by customers of Adient Ltd & Co. KG Germany. The 
production planning department automatically calculates the raw material and 
material requirements on the system. Meanwhile, staff in Adient România’s 
logistics department are involved in the actual supply of the goods, and supplies 
are recorded directly in the accounting system of Adient Ltd & Co. KG. Likewise, 
the same staff place shipping orders when the carrier is Adient Ltd & Co. KG. 
26 The duties and responsibilities of employees in Adient România’s quality 
department are not only confined to those derived from the quality control of the 
manufacturing process (they examine the raw materials received from suppliers, 
perform random checks along the production line and inspect the finished 
products – namely seat covers). In the course of performing those duties and 
responsibilities and carrying out their activities, they communicate with customers 
and suppliers, representing Adient Ltd & Co. KG vis-à-vis third parties. They are 
also involved in organising and compiling an annual inventory of assets belonging 
to Adient Ltd & Co. KG, assigning a monetary value to the latter, and in audits 
requested by customers of Adient Ltd & Co. KG. 
27 DGRFP Ploiești – AJFP Argeș further argues that, although the applicant claims 
that in order for a fixed establishment to exist, its human resources must be able to 
take management decisions or provide a framework within which agreements may 
be drawn up for and on behalf of Adient Ltd & Co. KG, the routine administrative 
decisions, the presence of authorised personnel who take such decisions locally in 
Romania (for coordination or verification purposes, for example) and the logistics 
necessary to achieve that objective are also relevant from the point of view of 
whether or not the conditions laid down by law regarding the existence of a fixed 
establishment in Romania are satisfied. 
28 As a result, Romanian nationals – employees in Adient România’s logistics and 
quality departments, those involved in the annual inventory of assets belonging to 
ADIENT 
 
9 
Adient Ltd & Co. KG, [those involved] in audits, those who have access to the 
computer system belonging to Adient Ltd & Co. KG, [and] the directors of the 
two TRIM branches – are in fact permanent human resources of Adient Ltd & Co. 
KG Germany in Romania. 
29 As for the technical resources, these consist of technical means (such as 
computers and scanners) belonging to Adient România, areas for the storage of 
goods belonging to Adient Ltd & Co. KG, and warehouse equipment and 
machinery. 
30 Therefore, DGRFP Ploiești – AJFP Argeș considers that the activity carried out in 
Romania by Adient Ltd & Co. KG is characterised by a sufficient degree of 
permanence, since the transactions in question were carried out regularly and on a 
continual basis throughout the period under review, using the human and technical 
resources described above, which enabled it to receive supplies of services and 
use them for its business. 
31 DGRFP Ploiești – AJFP Argeș considers the judgments of the Court of Justice in 
Cases C-168/84, Berkholz, C-190/95, ARO Lease, C-605/12, Welmory, and 
C-73/06, Planzer Luxembourg to be relevant in that regard. In Berkholz, the Court 
of Justice considers that a fixed establishment entails the permanent presence of 
both the human and technical resources necessary for the provision of services. In 
ARO Lease, the Court of Justice held that when a leasing company does not 
possess in a Member State either its own staff or a structure which has a sufficient 
degree of permanence to provide a framework within which agreements may be 
drawn up or management decisions taken and thus to enable the services in 
question to be supplied on an independent basis, it cannot be regarded as having a 
fixed establishment in that State. DGRFP Ploiești – AJFP Argeș considers, 
however, that that interpretation cannot be automatically extended to the present 
case, given that leasing services are different in nature. In Welmory, the Court of 
Justice determined that, in order to constitute a ‘fixed establishment’ within the 
meaning of Article 44 of Directive 2006/112, the establishment must be 
characterised by a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure in 
terms of human and technical resources to enable it to receive the services 
supplied to it and use them for its business. In Planzer Luxembourg, the Court of 
Justice held that the place of a company’s business is the place where the essential 
decisions concerning its general management are taken and where the functions of 
its central administration are exercised and that a fixed installation used by the 
undertaking only for preparatory or auxiliary activities, such as recruitment of 
staff or purchase of the technical means needed for carrying out the undertaking’s 
tasks, does not constitute a fixed establishment. 
32 With regard to the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-547/18, Dong 
Yang Electronics, relied on by the applicant in the application, DGRFP Ploiești – 
AJFP Argeș remarks that there are differences between the present case and Case 
C-547/18, since Adient România was not asked to do the impossible – that is, to 
undertake complex and far-reaching checks or to verify contractual relationships 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-533/22 
 
10  
which are inaccessible to it, which would go beyond the level of diligence that can 
reasonably be required of it to determine the place of supply of the services. 
33 DGRFP Ploiești – AJFP Argeș considers that the conditions laid down in 
Article 44 of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with the provisions of 
Implementing Regulation No 282/2011, concerning the concept of a fixed 
establishment of a taxable person, are satisfied and that Adient Ltd & Co. KG has 
sufficient technical and human resources to have a fixed establishment in 
Romania (the TRIM Pitești and TRIM Ploiești branches). Therefore, the 
conditions imposed by Article 266(2)(b) of Law No 227/2015 establishing the Tax 
Code are satisfied. Thus, as regards the place of supply of the services provided by 
the company being inspected to its partner Adient Ltd & Co. KG, this is not 
considered to be located at the place of business in Germany, but in the State in 
which the fixed establishment is located, namely Romania. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
34 The applicant has proposed that the matter be brought before the Court of Justice 
and its arguments have been taken up by the referring court; these have been set 
out in the section regarding the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
35 The referring court considers that the provisions of Directive 2006/112 are 
responsible for the difficulties in interpretation suggested by the applicant, since it 
is unclear how they should be interpreted when applied to the facts of the present 
case. 
36 By the first question, the applicant argues that the tax authority has classified a 
resident legal person as a fixed establishment solely on the basis that the two 
companies belong to the same group. The referring court considers that that 
question is justified in view of the commercial relationship between the resident 
company and the non-resident company. 
37 By the second question, the applicant submits that the tax authority has identified 
the fixed establishment of a non-resident legal person by reference only to the 
services supplied to that non-resident entity by a resident legal person. That aspect 
must be clarified in relation to the human and technical resources used by Adient 
Ltd & Co. KG Germany for the purpose of supplying goods to its customers. 
38 The third question concerns the possibility of identifying, for the purposes of 
Article 44 of Directive 2006/112 and Article 11(1) and (2) of Implementing 
Regulation No 282/2011, a fixed establishment of a non-resident legal person 
which supplies only goods and not services. A fixed establishment implies 
sufficiently well-defined technical and human resources to allow the independent 
implementation of (downstream) economic transactions. Both the national and the 
ADIENT 
 
11 
EU legislation refer to either the supply of goods or the supply of services. From 
the interpretation of the rules of EU law, in a situation in which Article 44 of 
Directive 2006/112 and Article 11(1) and (2) of Implementing Regulation 
No 282/2011 refer to the supply of services, can it be concluded that the supply of 
goods is to be excluded from the determination of the fixed establishment, 
particularly as Article 192a of Directive 2006/112 and Article 53 of Implementing 
Regulation No 282/2011 refer to either the supply of goods or the supply of 
services? 
39 The fourth and fifth questions proposed by the applicant reflect the confusion as to 
the factual situation established by the tax authorities. Thus, by the assessment 
notices at issue, the tax authority found that the human and technical resources 
involved in the supply of manufacturing services belong to Adient România, and 
not to Adient Ltd & Co. KG Germany, while the human and technical resources 
involved in the downstream supply of goods were attributed to the latter. The 
referring court considers that clarifying those aspects is important in enabling it to 
resolve this case. 
40 The sixth question concerns the interpretation of Article 53(2) of Implementing 
Regulation No 282/2011, which, in turn, concerns the interpretation and 
application of Article 192a(b) of [Directive 2006/112]. It seeks to ascertain 
whether activities related to the manufacturing of goods should be disregarded 
when determining the existence of a fixed establishment, since they are 
administrative support activities necessary for the manufacture of the goods. 
There is a lack of clarity regarding the interpretation of the provisions of 
Article 53(2) of Implementing Regulation No 282/2011, in the sense that 
administrative support activities are clearly excluded from the determination of 
the fixed establishment. However, in reality, the same question concerns the 
definition of the scope of the specific activities of the manufacturing services and 
how they differ from the supply of goods, and specifically whether the purpose of 
the transactions identified by the tax authority as carried out by the fixed 
establishment of the non-resident legal person is to provide administrative support 
for the manufacturing service. 
41 By the seventh question, the applicant seeks clarification as to whether, in 
determining the place of supply of services, the place where the respective 
services are resold by their recipient is of any relevance.