Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:614
Date: 2022-08-01
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

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: 
23 April 2021 
Referring court: 
Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Supreme Court of Cassation and 
Justice, Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
25 March 2021 
Appellant: 
Uniqa Asigurări SA 
Respondents: 
Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală – Direcția Generală de 
Soluționare a Contestațiilor (National Agency for Tax 
Administration – Directorate-General for the settlement of 
complaints) 
Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili 
(Directorate-General for large-scale taxpayers) 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal against the civil judgment of the Curtea de Apel București (Court of 
Appeal, Bucharest, Romania) of 19 June 2018 partially dismissing the appellant’s 
application for annulment of the decision on the settlement of the complaint of 
24 March 2016 and the notice of assessment of 30 December 2015 adopted, in 
relation to value added tax (VAT), by the tax authorities 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-267/21 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
An interpretation of Article 59 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 
2006 on the common system of value added tax is sought pursuant to Article 267 
TFEU. 
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
In interpreting Article 59 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 
2006 on the common system of value added tax, can claims settlement services 
supplied by correspondent companies for an insurance company, in the name and 
on behalf of the latter, be classified in the category of services supplied by 
consultants, engineers, consultancy firms, lawyers, accountants and other similar 
services, as well as data processing and the provision of information? 
Provisions of EU law and EU case-law relied on 
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of 
value added tax, Articles 46 and 59 
Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 
2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance 
against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council 
Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive), 
recitals 8 to 15, Article 4(1), (4) and (8) 
Internal Regulations of the Council of Bureaux appended to Commission Decision 
2003/564/EC of 28 July 2003 on the application of Council Directive 72/166/EEC 
relating to checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor 
vehicles 
Judgments of the Court of Justice of 6 March 1997, C-167/95, Linthorst, Pouwels 
en Scheres v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Roermond; of 
16 September 1997, C-145/96, von Hoffmann v Finanzamt Trier; of 25 January 
2001, C-429/97, Commission v France; of 6 December 2007, C-401/06, 
Commission v Germany; of 7 October 2010, C-222/09, Kronospan Mielec; and of 
17 March 2016, C-40/15, Aspiro 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Legea 571/2003 privind Codul fiscal (Law No 571/2003 establishing the Tax 
Code), in the version in force in 2009, applicable to the transactions in question: 
Article 133 
UNIQA ASIGURĂRI 
 
3 
‘(1) The place of supply of the services shall be deemed to be the place where 
the supplier is established or has an establishment from which the services are 
supplied. 
(2) By way of derogation from paragraph (1), with regard to the following 
services the place of supply of the services shall be deemed to be: 
… 
(g) the place where the customer to whom the services are supplied is 
established or has an establishment, provided that the customer concerned is 
established or has an establishment outside the Community or is a taxable person 
acting as such, established or having an establishment within the Community, but 
not in the same State as the supplier, in the case of the following services: 
… 
5. services supplied by consultants, engineers, lawyers, accountants and 
accounting experts, consultancy firms and other similar services; 
…’. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 SC Uniqa Asigurări SA (also ‘the company’) offers its customers compulsory 
third-party insurance policies, including Green Card coverage; this coverage is 
valid for accidents which occur outside the territory of Romania in the countries 
which form part of the Green Card system (in respect of countries both inside and 
outside the European Union). Green Card coverage forms part of third-party 
motor insurance, under which compensation is granted for the amounts which the 
insured person is required to pay for the destruction of property or personal injury 
caused by traffic accidents which occurred abroad. The company also grants 
compensation for any expenses incurred by the insured/injured person in civil 
proceedings. 
2 Therefore, in the event of an accident outside Romania, Uniqa, in its capacity as 
insurer, granted its customers compensation under Green Card coverage, from 
2007 to 2009, through a correspondent Uniqa company in the country concerned, 
as follows: 
‒ its customer submitted a claim for compensation to the correspondent 
company in the country in which the accident occurred; 
‒ the correspondent company settled the claim for compensation in the 
country in which the accident occurred, performing a series of multiple activities 
involving various aspects/actions, such as: 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-267/21 
 
4  
(i) notification/opening of a damages case ‒ by submitting/initiating a claim for 
compensation; 
(ii) research into the causes and circumstances of the accident – verification of 
the validity of the policy, ascertainment of the damage, valuation of the 
damage and conduct of the investigation, proposal of repair/replacement 
solutions; 
(iii) assessment of the value of the compensation – verification of the estimate, 
and so on; 
(iv) compensation for carrying out repairs – billing the garage, payment of 
compensation, and so on; 
(v) examination of claims for damages – post-compensation analysis; claims for 
damages may offset part of the insurance compensation paid. 
3 The actions taken when initiating a claim for compensation in the Green Card 
system are set out and governed by the Internal Regulations of the Council of 
Bureaux, under which the correspondent company designated to handle and settle 
the claim for compensation must conduct an investigation into all the 
circumstances of the accident. That investigation is to follow the abovementioned 
stages (i) to (v). 
4 Therefore, Uniqa concluded partnership agreements with 26 companies outside 
Romania, 21 of which are insurance companies, the rest being companies of a 
different type, which form part of the national bureaux of motor insurers, which 
handle the compensation schemes and deal with the identification of the 
correspondent companies which can settle the claims for compensation 
appropriately. 
5 Under the bilateral agreements concluded between Uniqa and the correspondent 
companies (Article 2 of the bilateral agreements), as regards the handling and 
settlement of the claim for compensation, the correspondent company is 
authorised by Uniqa and is required to act in the name of, on behalf of and in the 
interest of the company – in terms of protecting the insurer’s assets and for the 
purpose of closing the damages case, whilst at the same time acting in accordance 
with the legislation of the country in which the accident occurred. In that regard: 
‒ in respect of damage to property, up to the amount of EUR 15 000, caused 
by the accident, under Article 3.5 of the agreements, the correspondent companies 
are free to approve or refuse, remaining liable to both policyholders and Uniqa for 
the reason and the amount of payments made in settling the claims; 
‒ in respect of damage to property exceeding EUR 15 000, the correspondent 
companies are required to cooperate with Uniqa for the purpose of settling a claim 
for compensation, having regard to the relevant impact on the company’s assets; 
UNIQA ASIGURĂRI 
 
5 
claims are to be settled in accordance with the legislation of the country in which 
the accident occurred. 
6 Uniqa paid handling fees to the correspondent companies for the handling services 
supplied by them to the company’s customers in respect of claims for 
compensation, and applied the following tax treatment: 
• in respect of the amounts constituting compensation and services relating to 
accidents which occurred abroad, invoiced by Uniqa to the correspondent 
companies, the company did not calculate VAT since those amounts did not form 
part of the taxable amount for VAT purposes under Article 137(3)(e) of the Tax 
Code in force between 2007 and 2011; 
• in respect of the amounts constituting the handling fees invoiced by the 
correspondent companies in the form of commission to Uniqa for handling 
services in respect of claims for compensation, the company did not bear the VAT 
via the reverse charge mechanism, since those services did not fall within the 
scope of VAT in Romania under Article 133(1) of the Tax Code in force between 
2007 and 2009. 
7 The insurance company Uniqa also offers its customers health insurance policies 
for travel abroad. In this regard, on 1 April 2004 a cooperation contract was 
concluded between Coris International, Unita Insurance (now Uniqa Asigurări 
SA) and Coris Roumanie, concerning the handling by Coris International, in the 
name of and on behalf of Uniqa, of claims for compensation submitted by holders 
of health insurance policies for travel abroad which Uniqa had taken out for its 
customers, in terms of providing all the organisational, technical and legal 
services for the administration and settlement of those claims. 
8 Under Article 5 of the cooperation contract, Coris International undertakes to 
carry out the following activities for the settlement of claims for compensation: 
‒ ensuring that insured persons have access to assistance 24 hours a day; 
‒ determining the amount of the damages and ensuring payment thereof; 
‒ informing Uniqa about the events which occurred, the circumstances in 
which they occurred, the diagnosis and cost of medical treatment, and any other 
costs; 
‒ providing technical, organisational and legal assistance for insured persons. 
9 On 16 April 2007, the parties to the cooperation contract adopted additional clause 
No 1, stipulating that, in consideration for the services supplied by Coris 
International, Uniqa was required to pay the following amounts: 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-267/21 
 
6  
‒ 9% of the gross premiums written (that is to say, handling fees) – for the 
examination and investigation of claims and the provision of continuous 
assistance by Coris agents – to Coris International; 
‒ 91% of the gross premiums written (hospitalisation costs, consultation costs, 
airline tickets, and so on) (that is to say, costs relating to compensation) – to Coris 
Roumanie. 
10 In invoicing the costs relating to compensation, the company did not calculate the 
VAT, considering that those costs did not form part of the taxable amount for 
VAT purposes under Article 137(3)(e) of the Tax Code in force between 2007 and 
2011. In respect of the handling fees paid during the period from 2007 to 2009, 
the company did not bear the VAT via the reverse charge mechanism, since those 
services did not fall within the scope of VAT in Romania under Article 133(1) of 
the Tax Code. 
11 From 13 March 2012 to 18 December 2015, the tax authorities carried out a tax 
inspection at the headquarters of Uniqa Asigurări SA to establish, by random spot 
checks, whether the obligation to calculate, declare and pay certain tax charges 
between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2011 had been fulfilled. Following the 
tax inspection, on 30 December 2015 the supervisory authorities issued a tax 
inspection report and a notice of assessment which required the company to pay 
additional VAT in a total amount of 3 439 412 Romanian lei (RON) and 
incidental charges in a total amount of RON 3 706 077 by way of handling fees. 
12 On 24 March 2016, the company lodged a tax complaint seeking annulment of the 
tax documents relating to the abovementioned additional tax charges, which was 
rejected by the decision on the settlement of the complaint of 15 September 2016. 
13 On 23 December 2016, Uniqa Asigurări SA brought an action before the Curtea 
de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest), seeking annulment of the 
decision on the settlement of the complaint of 15 September 2016 and annulment 
of the notice of assessment of 30 December 2015, and a declaration that the tax 
inspection report issued on the same date was unlawful. 
14 The Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) gave a civil judgment 
on 19 June 2018 by which it only partially granted the application initiating legal 
proceedings, annulling the notice of assessment only in respect of some of the 
incidental tax charges, finding that the appellant company had suffered injury as a 
result of the unjustifiably excessive duration of the tax inspection. That court held 
that handling and settlement services in respect of claims for compensation ‘are 
similar to those supplied by engineers’, with reference to Case C-222/09, 
Kronospan Mielec. 
15 Both the appellant and the tax authorities concerned appealed that decision before 
the referring court. The appellant criticised certain aspects relating to the 
determination of VAT on the handling fees applied to certain transactions which, 
UNIQA ASIGURĂRI 
 
7 
in its view, cannot be taxed in the territory of Romania, whereas the tax authorities 
appealed the decision partially annulling the incidental charges. 
Essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
16 For the purposes of determining the taxation, the tax authorities deemed 
applicable in the present case Article 133 of the Tax Code, which governs the 
place of supply of the services between 2007 and 2009, considering that an 
accident constituted an exception as provided for in Article 133(2)(g)(5) of the 
Tax Code, and not the rule invoked by the company, considering that, as regards 
investigation services in respect of damages cases, the place of supply of the 
services is in the Member State in which the recipient is established, that is to say, 
Romania. 
17 In support of the classification of the services supplied by the correspondent 
companies and Coris International in the category of ‘other similar services’, the 
tax authorities invoked Notice 741 issued by the British Government, which states 
that it also covers the services of loss adjusters/assessors, which include the 
examination of property to establish the extent of the damage as well as the 
negotiation of a settlement amount. Therefore, the tax authorities conclude that, 
since the handling and settlement activities performed by the correspondent 
companies and Coris International for Uniqa in respect of claims for 
compensation correspond to what the British designate as ‘services of loss 
adjusters’, those services fall within the category of ‘other similar services’ and 
the place of supply of those services is Romania. 
18 In support of its allegations of unlawfulness, the appellant claimed that the 
services supplied by its correspondents do not fall under ‘other similar services’ to 
which the exception introduced by Article 133(2)(g)(5) of the Tax Code refers, 
and that, on that basis, the rule laid down in Article 133(1) of the Tax Code must 
apply, since the place of supply of the services is abroad and not in Romania, 
contrary to the incorrect position taken by the tax authorities which led to the 
unlawful collection of VAT for those services. 
19 The appellant also considers that the reasoning of the tax authorities is incorrect in 
that the services supplied by its correspondents are of a much more complex 
nature than the examination of property for the purpose of establishing the damage 
and the negotiation of a settlement amount. The services supplied by the 
correspondent companies and Coris International are therefore not limited to a 
simple examination of the accident and an evaluation of the damage – the rather 
specific activity of a loss adjuster – but involve the supply of an integrated range 
of services which starts with the opening of the damages case and, in certain 
cases, can end with payment of the amount of the damage. 
20 Therefore, even if the damage examination and evaluation services to which the 
tax authorities refer are included in the services supplied by the correspondents of 
the company, those services represent only part of the overall activity of the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-267/21 
 
8  
correspondent companies or Coris International, and therefore it would be 
simplistic, and thus unlawful, to treat them in the same way as damage inspection 
services. 
21 Therefore, the services acquired by the company from its correspondents cannot 
be classified in the category of similar services supplied by 
consultants/lawyers/engineers, or even loss adjusters, since they are genuine 
handling and settlement services in respect of claims for compensation which do 
not fall within the model envisaged by the legislature for applying the exception 
relating to the place of supply of services. 
Succinct presentation of the reasons for the reference 
22 In the appeal proceedings brought by the company, it is for the court seised to rule 
on the legal nature of the claims settlement services supplied by the correspondent 
companies for an insurance company. The referring court considers that an 
interpretation of Articles 46 and 59 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 
28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax is required in order 
to determine whether claims settlement services supplied by correspondent 
companies for an insurance company, in the name and on behalf of the latter, fall 
within the category of services supplied by consultants, engineers, consultancy 
firms, lawyers, accountants and other similar services, as well as data processing 
and the provision of information, in which case the exception to the general rule 
relating to the place of supply of services is applicable to those services. 
23 The referring court recalls that some of the services at issue in this case, which 
were taxed in the territory of Romania, were supplied in accordance with 
Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 
2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance 
against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council 
Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive). On 
the basis of that legislation, bilateral cooperation agreements concerning the 
settlement of claims for compensation, which are the subject of the tax inspection 
in this case, were concluded, under which the agent is authorised and required to 
handle the claim for compensation in accordance with the applicable legislation 
and the claims settlement practices in the interests of the third-party insurer. 
24 It follows from Article 5 of the Internal Regulations of the Council of Bureaux 
that correspondent companies have the right to claim from the insurer, inter alia, 
handling fees covering all other expenses, calculated in accordance with the rules 
approved by the Council of Bureaux. That handling commission relates to the 
supply of services to the third-party insurer, for the purpose of investigating 
damages cases, and the service provider’s capacity to make decisions is subject to 
the objective of supplying services in the name and on behalf of the recipient 
insurer, in the manner most advantageous to the latter, in compliance with the 
applicable law, and on the basis of the agreement concluded between the parties. 
UNIQA ASIGURĂRI 
 
9 
25 Therefore, the present case concerns the supply by correspondent companies of 
complex services relating to the handling and settlement of claims for 
compensation, which involve multiple activities that must be regarded as forming 
a whole. 
26 With reference to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the 
referring court notes that the expression ‘other similar services’ contained in 
Article 59 of Directive 2006/112/EC does not concern professions such as lawyer, 
consultant, accounting expert or engineer, but only services. The expression ‘other 
similar services’ does not refer to any element common to the various activities 
mentioned in the directive, but to similar services in relation to each of those 
activities, taken separately. Since Community case-law is not therefore 
sufficiently precise to resolve with the necessary clarity the question of law which 
arises in the present case, the referring court considers it necessary to make a 
reference to the Court of Justice for an interpretation of the provisions of the VAT 
Directive. 
27 Nor was the question of law which arises in this case dealt with in Case C-40/15, 
Aspiro, in which the Court of Justice analysed the tax treatment applicable to the 
services supplied by correspondent companies in the light of the VAT Directive 
and held that those services are services falling within the scope of VAT as they 
are not exempt from tax. The legal nature of the services supplied by 
correspondent companies has been addressed by the Court of Justice but, in the 
present case, the question arises as to whether or not those services fall within the 
category of similar services governed by Article 59(1)(c) of the VAT Directive. 
Once this issue has been resolved, the referring court will be able to determine 
precisely the place where those services are taxable for VAT purposes.