Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2025:600
Date: 2025-08-01
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Translation C-433/24 – 1 
Case C-433/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
18 June 2024 
Referring court: 
Conseil d’État (France) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
18 June 2024 
Appellant and applicant at first instance: 
Galerie Karsten Greve 
Defendant: 
Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté 
industrielle et numérique 
  
…  
… … 
… … 
… … 
…  
 … 
…  
… 
The company Galerie Karsten Greve applied to the tribunal administratif de Paris 
(Administrative Court, Paris, France) for the cancellation of the additional 
assessments of value added tax (VAT) claimed from it for the period from 
1 January to 31 December 2014, and the corresponding penalties. By judgment 
No 1812825 of 25 November 2020, that court dismissed its application. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 18. 6. 2024 – CASE C-433/24 
 
2 
By judgment No 21PA00400 of 1 June 2014, the cour administrative d’appel de 
Paris (Administrative Court of Appeal, Paris, France) dismissed the appeal 
brought by Galerie Karsten Greve against the judgment delivered at first instance. 
By appeal [of] … 21 July 2022, …, Galerie Karsten Greve requests the Conseil 
d’État (Council of State, France) to: 
(1) set aside the latter judgment; 
(2) uphold its appeal when ruling on the substance of the case; 
(3) [order] … the State [to pay the costs] … 
The applicant submits that the cour administrative d’appel de Paris 
(Administrative Court of Appeal, Paris) committed an error of law and an error in 
the legal characterisation of the facts in ruling, in support of the refusal to apply 
the optional margin taxation scheme to sales of paintings that the applicant had 
acquired from Studio Rubin Gideon, a company governed by United Kingdom 
law, that that company had the status of taxable dealer under Council Directive 
2006/112/EC of 26 November 2006 [on the common system of value added tax 
(OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1; ‘the VAT Directive’)] and that it was not the creator of the 
paintings within the meaning of that directive. 
… [The defendant] contends that the appeal should be dismissed. [It] submits that 
the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant company are unfounded. 
… 
1 According to the documents in the file …, Galerie Karsten Greve, which runs an 
art gallery business, had its accounts audited by the French tax authorities, which 
called into question the benefit to the margin taxation scheme that the company 
had applied to the resale of works of art acquired from Studio Rubin Gideon, a 
company governed by United Kingdom law. As a consequence, the tax authorities 
issued additional assessments for VAT for the period from 1 January to 
31 December 2014. … 
2 According to Article 311 of the [VAT Directive], which is the opening provision 
of Chapter 4, ‘Special arrangements for second-hand goods, works of art, 
collectors’ items and antiques’, under Title XII, ‘Special schemes’: ‘1. For the 
purposes of this Chapter, and without prejudice to other Community provisions, 
the following definitions shall apply: … (2) “works of art” means the objects listed 
in Annex IX, Part A …’, which mentions ‘pictures, collages and similar 
decorative plaques, paintings and drawings, executed entirely by hand by the 
artist …’. Under Article 316 of that directive, ‘1. Member States shall grant 
taxable dealers the right to opt for application of the margin scheme to the 
following transactions: (a) the supply of works of art, collectors’ items or 
antiques, which the taxable dealer has imported himself; (b) the supply of works 
of art supplied to the taxable dealer by their creators or their successors in title; (c) 
GALERIE KARSTEN GREVE 
 
3 
the supply of works of art supplied to the taxable dealer by a taxable person other 
than a taxable dealer where the reduced rate has been applied to that supply 
pursuant to Article 103’. According to Article 103 of the same directive: ‘1. 
Member States may provide that the reduced rate, or one of the reduced rates, 
which they apply in accordance with Articles 98 and 99 is also to apply to the 
importation of works of art, collectors’ items and antiques, as defined in 
points (2), (3) and (4) of Article 311(1). 2. If Member States avail themselves of 
the option under paragraph 1, they may also apply the reduced rate to the 
following transactions: (a) the supply of works of art, by their creator or his 
successors in title; (b) the supply of works of art, on an occasional basis, by a 
taxable person other than a taxable dealer, where the works of art have been 
imported by the taxable person himself, or where they have been supplied to him 
by their creator or his successors in title, or where they have entitled him to full 
deduction of VAT’. According to Article 94(1) of the same directive: ‘The rate 
applicable to the intra-Community acquisition of goods shall be that applied to the 
supply of like goods within the territory of the Member State.’ 
3 Under paragraph I(1) of Article 297 A of the code général des impôts (French 
General Tax Code): ‘The taxable amount for the supply by a taxable dealer of 
second-hand goods, works of art, collectors’ items and antiques supplied to the 
taxable dealer by a person not liable for value added tax or by a person who is not 
authorised to charge value added tax in respect of that supply shall be equal to the 
difference between the selling price and the purchase price. The definition of 
second-hand goods, works of art, collectors’ items and antiques is laid down by 
decree’. Article 297 B of that code states that: ‘Taxable dealers may request to 
apply the provisions of Article 297 A for the supply of works of art, collectors’ 
items or antiques subsequent to import, intra-Community acquisition or supply 
subject to the reduced rate of value added tax pursuant to Article 278 septies or 
paragraph I of Article 278-0 bis’. According to paragraph II(1) of Article 98 A of 
Annex III to the same code, ‘pictures, collages and similar decorative plaques, 
paintings and drawings, executed entirely by hand by the artist’ are considered 
works of art. 
4 … 
5 [plea alleging an error in the characterisation of Studio Rubin Gideon as a taxable 
dealer, rejected by the referring court] … 
6 … Subparagraph 2 of the first paragraph of Article 278 septies of the General Tax 
Code, according to the version applicable to the tax period in dispute, states that 
‘supplies of works of art, by their creator or his or her successors in title’ are 
subject to VAT at a rate of 10%. It follows from the combination of those 
provisions and Article 297 B of the General Tax Code mentioned in paragraph 3 
above that the right to opt for the special margin scheme for value added tax 
applies to the supply of works of art following the supply by their creator or his or 
her successors in title, as well as following an intra-Community acquisition from 
their creator or his or her successors in title. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 18. 6. 2024 – CASE C-433/24 
 
4 
7 It is clear from the documents in the file … that Galerie Karsten Greve applied the 
VAT margin scheme to the supply to its customers of paintings by the painter 
Gideon Rubin, which it had obtained following intra-Community acquisitions 
from Studio Rubin Gideon, of which Mr Rubin was one of the two partners. As a 
basis for ruling that Galerie Karsten Greve was not entitled to apply the VAT 
margin scheme to the supply of those paintings, the cour administrative d’appel 
[de Paris] (Administrative Court of Appeal[, Paris]) held … that the paintings had 
not been supplied to it by their creator, on the ground that only the artist who had 
painted the paintings with his or her own hand could be the creator. Accordingly, 
Studio Rubin Gideon, as a legal person, could not be regarded as the creator of the 
paintings at issue. In support of its appeal, the appellant company submits that the 
cour administrative d’appel [de Paris] (Administrative Court of Appeal[, Paris]) 
erred in law on that point. 
8 The answer to the ground of appeal raised by the appellant company is subject to 
the question of whether the provisions of Article 316(1)(b) of the [VAT 
Directive], combined with those of Article 311(1)(2) thereof and those of Part A 
of Annex IX thereto, must be interpreted as precluding a legal person such as a 
company from being regarded, within the meaning and for the purposes of those 
provisions, as the ‘creator’ of a painting. 
9 If the first question is answered in the negative, the answer to the ground of appeal 
raised is also subject to the question of which criteria must be taken into account 
to allow a legal person such as a company to be regarded, within the meaning and 
for the purposes of those same provisions, as the ‘creator’ of a painting (such as, 
in the case of a company, the company being subject to a particular legal regime, 
the fact that the natural person who painted the painting holds some or all of the 
company’s share capital, the exercise by that person of management functions 
within the company, and so on). 
10 Those questions are decisive for the outcome of the dispute before the Conseil 
d’Etat (Council of State). However, they present serious difficulties. It is therefore 
necessary to refer the questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for 
a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU and, until that Court has given a 
ruling in that regard, to stay the proceedings in respect of the claims submitted by 
the applicant. 
H E R E B Y  O R D E R S :  
Article 1: The proceedings are stayed until the Court of Justice of the European 
Union has given a ruling on the following questions: 
(1) Must the provisions of Article 316(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 
28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, combined with 
those of Article 311(1)(2) thereof and those of Part A of Annex IX thereto, be 
interpreted as precluding a legal person such as a company from being regarded, 
GALERIE KARSTEN GREVE 
 
5 
within the meaning and for the purposes of those provisions, as the ‘creator’ of a 
painting? 
(2) If the first question is answered in the negative, which criteria must be taken 
into account to allow a legal person such as a company to be regarded, within the 
meaning and for the purposes of those same provisions, as the ‘creator’ of a 
painting (such as, in the case of a company, the company being subject to a 
particular legal regime, the fact that the natural person who painted the painting 
holds some or all of the company’s share capital, the exercise by that person of 
management functions within the company, and so on). 
…