Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:518
Date: 2020-07-02
Language of the case: Finnish
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Finland

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: 
8 March 2019 
Referring court:  
Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
5 March 2019 
Appellant: 
Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö 
      
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Value added tax — Leasing of immovable property — Service connected 
with immovable property — Computing centre service — Directive 
2006/112/EC — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 
Subject matter and legal basis of the reference 
The case concerns the interpretation of Article 47 of Council Directive 
2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’) 
and of Articles 13b and 31a of 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 (‘the Implementing 
Regulation’), as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 
No 1042/2013 of 7 October 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 
No 282/2011 as regards the place of supply of services. 
Pursuant to the Arvonlisäverolaki (Law on value added tax, ‘the AVL’), the 
Verohallinto (tax administration) issues, on written application, an advance ruling 
on how the law is to be applied to a transaction of the applicant. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-215/19 
 
2  
A legally valid advance ruling is to be considered as binding by request of the 
addressee for the period in respect of which it was issued. A ruling issued by the 
tax administration on the basis of the AVL in respect of value added taxation may 
be contested before the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Helsinki Administrative Court). 
The decision of the Administrative Court may be appealed against to the Korkein 
hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), if the latter grants leave to 
appeal. The party applying for the advance ruling and the Veronsaajien 
oikeudenvalvontayksikkö (unit for protecting the rights of tax recipients) are 
entitled to appeal. 
In the present proceedings [the company] A Oy requested an advance ruling from 
the tax administration. A Oy contested the advance ruling of the tax 
administration by appealing to the Helsinki Administrative Court. The 
Administrative Court allowed the company’s appeal. The Veronsaajien 
oikeudenvalvontayksikkö requested the granting of leave to appeal and contested 
the decision of the Administrative Court by an appeal to the Korkein hallinto-
oikeus. 
Questions referred 
1. Are Articles 13b and 31a of 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, as amended by Council 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1042/2013 of 7 October 2013 amending 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 as regards the place of supply of 
services, to be interpreted as meaning that computing centre services of the type at 
issue in the main proceedings, with which a trader provides its customers with 
equipment cabinets in a computing centre for holding customers’ servers together 
with ancillary services, are to be regarded as the leasing or letting of immovable 
property? 
2. If the first question is answered in the negative, are Article 47 of VAT 
Directive 2006/112/EC and Article 31a of the aforementioned Implementing 
Regulation nevertheless to be interpreted as meaning that a computing centre 
service of the type at issue in the main proceedings is to be regarded as a service 
connected with immovable property, the place of supply of which is the location 
of the property? 
Provisions of EU law cited 
Article 47 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the 
common system of value added tax 
Articles 13b and 31a of 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, as amended by Council Implementing 
VERONSAAJIEN OIKEUDENVALVONTAYKSIKKÖ 
 
3 
Regulation (EU) No 1042/2013 of 7 October 2013 amending Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 as regards the place of supply of services 
Case-law of the Court of Justice cited 
Judgment of 27 June 2013, Minister Finansów v RR Donnelley Global Turnkey 
Solutions Poland, C-155/12, EU:C:2013:434, paragraphs 34 to 38 
Provisions of national law cited 
The VAT Directive and the previously valid Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to 
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of 
assessment were transposed into Finnish law by the Law on value added tax 
30.12.1993/1501, with later amendments, which entered into force on 1 June 1994 
(indicated in brackets are the numbers of the amending laws forming the basis of 
the versions of the provisions in force for the period for which the advance ruling 
was issued). 
Under Paragraph 1(1)(1) of the AVL, value added tax is paid to the State for the 
sale of goods or services that takes place in Finland in the form of an economic 
activity. 
Under Paragraph 27(1) of the AVL, the tax is not paid on the sale of immovable 
property or the grant of a lease of land or letting of a room, an easement or another 
comparable right in respect of immovable property. Under Paragraph 27(2), the 
tax is also not paid on the provision of electricity, gas, heat, water or comparable 
commodities in connection with the grant of a tax-free right to use immovable 
property. 
Under Paragraph 28 of the AVL (1064/2016), immovable property means 
immovable property as defined in Article 13b of Council Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 282/2011/EC laying down implementing measures for 
Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax. 
Under Paragraph 65 of the AVL (505/2014), a service provided to a trader acting 
as such is sold in Finland if it is provided at a permanent establishment of the 
buyer that is situated there, unless otherwise indicated below. If such a service is 
not provided at a permanent establishment, it is sold in Finland if the seat of the 
buyer’s economic activity is located there. 
Under Paragraph 67(1) of the AVL (1064/2016), services connected with 
immovable property are sold in Finland if the immovable property is situated 
there. Under Paragraph 67(2), services of experts and estate agents, 
accommodation services, the granting of rights to use immovable property and 
SUMMARY OF REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-215/19 
 
4  
construction services are, inter alia, regarded as be services connected with 
immovable property. 
Brief summary of the facts and procedure 
1 Application to the tax administration for the issuing of an advance ruling 
2 A Oy (also ‘the company’) is a nationwide network operator for wireless 
telecommunications networks. The company’s activity also includes the 
development of telecommunications networks and network infrastructure. 
3 The company provides its customers, who are domestic and foreign operators in 
the IT sector, with computing centre services. The company’s customers use 
servers belonging to them in order to provide their own customers with data traffic 
connections. The servers are held in computing centres which are provided with 
the necessary data traffic connections and in which inter alia humidity and 
temperature are precisely regulated, in order to support the purpose of use of the 
servers. The air-conditioned environment for the equipment held in the equipment 
cabinets is essential for the functioning of the customer’s equipment. 
4 The computing centre service offered by the company includes an equipment 
cabinet with a lockable door, electricity and the provision of an environment that 
is as optimal as possible for the use of the servers. The services connected with the 
use environment include inter alia the monitoring of temperate and humidity in the 
server room, cooling, the monitoring of outages in the power supply, smoke 
alarms in the equipment cabinets for detecting possible equipment fires and 
electronic access control. The company also takes care inter alia of general 
cleaning and the replacement of lighting. 
5 The equipment cabinets are situated in immovable property leased by the 
company, in which the company has installed several equipment cabinets. The 
equipment cabinets are two metres high, 0.80 metres wide and one metre deep in 
dimension. The equipment cabinets are bolted to the floor. The company’s 
customers hold their own equipment in the equipment cabinets. The equipment is 
screwed fast to the cabinets and can be removed within a few minutes. The 
equipment weighs 2 kg to 300 kg and the weight of an entire cabinet including 
equipment is 20 kg to 500 kg. 
6 The customers do not have their own key to their equipment cabinet; there is 
instead a 24-hour security service on the premises. On presentation of 
identification, a customer receives a key which gives him access to his equipment 
cabinet. The company is not authorised to go into a customer’s equipment cabinet. 
7 In the contract, the company and the customer have concluded separate 
agreements for the rental of the equipment cabinet and for electricity, which is 
charged for according to use. However, both are charged for under one sum in the 
VERONSAAJIEN OIKEUDENVALVONTAYKSIKKÖ 
 
5 
invoice without breakdown. Electricity and transfer of electricity make up around 
a third of the service. The invoicing takes place monthly. 
8 As a separate service, the customer can purchase from the company inter alia 
equipment maintenance, such as resetting of the equipment or the connection of 
cables. For an additional charge, it is also possible to purchase from the company 
the installation of equipment in the equipment cabinet. This service is used in 
particular by foreign customers. The customers also often order other services 
from the company for an additional charge, such as maintenance services. 
9 Advance ruling of the tax administration of 27 February 2017 for the period from 
27 February 2017 to 31 December 2018 
10 In the advance ruling issued to the company, the tax administration found that the 
above-described sale of the overall service did not constitute the sale of a service 
within the meaning of the country of sale provision in Paragraph 65 of the AVL, 
but rather the sale of a service connected with immovable property pursuant to 
Paragraph 67 of the AVL, whose country of sale was determined according to the 
location of the property. 
11 In its ruling the tax administration took the view that the renting of the equipment 
holding area required for the server belonging to the customer formed the main 
service of the overall service described above and was central and essential with 
regard to the services provided. This therefore involved the grant of a right to use 
immovable property mentioned in Paragraph 27 of the AVL and a service 
connected with immovable property within the meaning of Paragraph 67 of the 
AVL, whose country of sale was determined according to Paragraph 67 of the 
AVL. 
12 Decision of the Helsinki Administrative Court of 27 October 2017 
13 A Oy contested the ruling of the tax administration before the Helsinki 
Administrative Court. 
14 The company requested that the ruling of the tax administration be annulled and a 
new advance ruling be issued to the effect that the overall service described 
constitutes the sale of a service within the meaning of the country of sale 
provision of Paragraph 65 of the AVL. 
15 The Helsinki Administrative Court allowed the company’s appeal, annulled the 
ruling of the tax administration and, by way of a new advance ruling, found that 
the overall service mentioned constituted the sale of a service within the meaning 
of Paragraph 65 of the AVL. In its order, the Administrative Court referred, as 
applicable legal rules, to the provisions of Paragraphs 28, 65 and 67(1) of the 
AVL, Article 47 of the VAT Directive and Articles 13b and 31a of the 
Implementing Regulation and to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 
C-155/12, RR Donelley Global Turnkey Solutions Poland. 
SUMMARY OF REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-215/19 
 
6  
16 According to the Administrative Court, the issue to be resolved in this case is 
whether the computing centre service described was to be regarded as a service 
connected with immovable property, the sale of which was covered by the country 
of sale provision of Paragraph 67 of the AVL. 
17 In its decision the Administrative Court took the view that, even though they were 
bolted to the floor, the equipment cabinets intended for the customers’ servers 
could be moved without destroying or altering the building or construction within 
the meaning of Article 13b(d) of the Implementing Regulation. The equipment 
cabinets were not therefore immovable property within the meaning of the 
Implementing Regulation. 
18 According to the Administrative Court, a customer of the company does not gain 
possession of any part of the building forming the computing centre, but merely 
has the opportunity to use the equipment cabinet located in the computing centre 
under optimal conditions. The Administrative Court considered that, under the 
designation computing centre service, the company sold its customers an overall 
service based on holding the customers’ servers, the main service of which 
consisted in providing the customer with a use environment which is optimal with 
regard to the functioning of the servers. 
19 Under these circumstances, the overall service described above could not be 
regarded as a service connected with immovable property. The country of sale 
provision of Paragraph 65 of the AVL therefore had to be applied to the sale of the 
service. 
Principal arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
20 In its appeal to the Korkein hallinto-oikeus, the Veronsaajien 
oikeudenvalvontayksikkö requested that the decision of the Administrative Court 
be set aside and the advance ruling of the tax administration, according to which 
the overall service offered by the company constituted the grant of the right to use 
immovable property within the meaning of Paragraph 27 of the AVL or 
alternatively the sale of a service connected with immovable property within the 
meaning of Paragraph 67 of the AVL, be brought into effect. 
21 As grounds, the Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö argues that the equipment 
cabinets located in the building are parts of immovable property within the 
meaning of Article 13b(c) of the Implementing Regulation, without which the 
computing centre would be defective with regard to its purpose of use. The 
equipment cabinets can be placed in the building in such a way that they can be 
moved and replaced. With regard to the application of Article 13b(c) of the 
Implementing Regulation, it is irrelevant whether the parts of the immovable 
property, in this case the equipment cabinets, can be moved without destroying or 
altering the building. 
VERONSAAJIEN OIKEUDENVALVONTAYKSIKKÖ 
 
7 
22 The Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö also takes the view that, regardless of 
whether the overall service offered by the company is defined as the letting of 
immovable property or as a different service, the provision of the company’s 
service constitutes a service connected with immovable property, the place of 
supply of which is the location of the immovable property, that is to say the 
computing centre. 
23 According to the Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö, the immovable property, 
that is to say the equipment cabinet of the computing centre, forms an 
indispensable element of the overall service offered by the company. The 
immovable property is a central and essential factor for the service provided. It is 
not possible to provide the service without its underlying immovable property, 
which proves that the service is supplied with regard to specific immovable 
property. The overall service offered by the company is derived from an 
immovable property, since this is used for performing the service and forms the 
most important and decisive element of the service performance. Therefore, the 
service is directly linked to immovable property and a service connected with 
immovable property is involved. 
24 The company argues before the Korkein hallinto-oikeus that the premises let for 
the activity of the computing centre were originally built for a different purpose. 
The premises were later adapted to the purpose of the computing centre and will 
easily be restored to the original state after expiry of the lease. 
25 The company submits that the equipment cabinets located in the computing centre 
cannot be regarded as parts that are permanently attached to the building. The 
building is just as complete without the equipment cabinets. The computing centre 
service is a special activity performed on the immovable property. The equipment 
cabinets are used for the computing centre activity performed by the company, 
that is to say equipment used for a special activity is involved. Such equipment 
will only become part of the immovable property in the event that it cannot be 
moved without destroying or altering the building itself. The equipment cabinets 
can be moved without destroying the building or the cabinet itself. 
Brief summary of the basis for the reference 
26 The issue to be resolved in this case is whether the equipment cabinets connected 
with the computing centre service offered by the company are to be regarded as 
immovable property within the meaning of Article 13b of the Implementing 
Regulation. If this question is answered in the negative, it is also to be resolved 
whether the computing centre service offered by the company is to be regarded as 
a service connected with immovable property within the meaning of Article 47 of 
the VAT Directive, the place of supply of which is the location of the property. 
When assessing the last-mentioned question, consideration is also to be given to 
Article 31a of the Implementing Regulation, which stipulates the cases in which 
services are to be regarded as services connected with immovable property. 
SUMMARY OF REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-215/19 
 
8  
27 In the decision under appeal, the Administrative Court took the view that the 
equipment cabinets connected with the computing centre service offered by the 
company did not constitute immovable property within the meaning of Article 13b 
of the Implementing Regulation. The Administrative Court also considered that 
the computing centre service offered by the company was not to be regarded as a 
service connected with immovable property within the meaning of Article 31a of 
the Implementing Regulation. 
28 Before the Korkein hallinto-oikeus, the Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö 
opposes the interpretation, put forward by the Administrative Court in this case, of 
the provisions referred to in the decision. According to the Veronsaajien 
oikeudenvalvontayksikkö, the equipment cabinets are immovable property, and 
the computing centre service offered by the company constitutes a service 
connected with immovable property, the place of supply of which is the location 
of the property. 
29 The Korkein hallinto-oikeus is not aware of any preliminary ruling by the Court of 
Justice on the application of Article 47 of the VAT Directive and Articles 13b and 
31a of the Implementing Regulation to the above-described activity of a company. 
In the opinion of the Korkein hallinto-oikeus, the aforementioned judgment 
C-155/12 of the Court of Justice does not provide a direct answer to the question 
concerning the case now pending.