Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:536
Date: 2015-09-03
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Lithuania

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 3 September 2015 1. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions — Supplies of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels — Conditions — Supply at the final stage of the commercial chain (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 131 and 148(a)) 2. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions — Supplies of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels by intermediaries acting in their own name — Unlawful — Limits — Transfer of ownership of the goods to the intermediaries at the same time as the operators of the vessels are actually entitled to dispose of the fuel (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 148(a)) 3. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive — Supplies of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of aircraft — Definition — Independent interpretation (Council Directive 2006/112, 148(a) and (f)) 1. Transactions for fuelling and provisioning vessels used for navigation on the high seas are exempted from value added tax under Article 148(a) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax because they are equated with exports. Therefore, just as the exemption provided for export transactions applies exclusively to the final supply of goods exported by the seller or on his behalf, the exemption laid down in Article 148(a) cannot be extended to the supply of those goods effected at a previous stage in the commercial chain. Furthermore, such an extension would require Member States to set up systems of supervision and control in order to satisfy themselves as to the ultimate use of the goods supplied free of tax, which would amount to constraints on the Member States and the taxable persons concerned which it would be impossible to reconcile with the correct and straightforward application of the exemptions laid down in Article 131 of Directive 2006/112. It follows that, in order to benefit from the exemption laid down in that provision, a supply of goods for fuelling and provisioning must be made to the operator of vessels used for navigation on the high seas which will use those goods and must, therefore, be made at the final stage in the commercial chain with respect to those goods. (see paras 26-29) 2. A supply of goods for fuelling and provisioning made to intermediaries acting in their own name, even if the latter act on behalf of the operators of vessels which will use those goods, must be distinguished, for the purposes of Article 148(a) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, from a supply to those operators. Thus, a supply of goods to an intermediary acting in his own name is not made at the last stage of the commercial chain for those goods, since it is intended that the intermediary will acquire the goods not to use them, but to sell them to a third party. It follows that a supply of goods for fuelling and provisioning made to such intermediaries cannot, in principle, be regarded as a supply of the kind referred to in Article 148(a) of Directive 2006/112 and therefore cannot benefit from the exemption laid down in that provision. Therefore, the exemption provided for in that provision is not, in principle, applicable to supplies of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels used for navigation on the high seas and carrying passengers for reward or used for the purpose of commercial, industrial or fishing activities to intermediaries acting in their own name. In that connection, it is irrelevant if, at the date on which the supply is made, the ultimate use of the goods is known and duly established and evidence confirming this is submitted to the tax authority in accordance with national legislation. Furthermore, no analogy can be drawn between such a supply of fuel and an exemption scheme under Article 148(f) thereof for the supply of an aircraft to an operator which is not itself an airline, because those goods are of radically different kinds. That would be the case especially if the uniform application of Article 148(a) of Directive 2006/112 could not be guaranteed without compromising the objective of administrative simplification. However, that exemption may apply if the transfer to those intermediaries of the ownership in the goods concerned under the procedures laid down by the applicable national law took place at the earliest at the same time when the operators of vessels used for navigation on the high seas were actually entitled to dispose of those goods as if they were the owners, a matter which is for the national court to ascertain. From the moment the fuel is loaded into the fuel tanks of a vessel, its operator is generally entitled actually to dispose of it as if it were the owner. Consequently, in such circumstances, although, according to the procedures laid down by the applicable national law, the ownership of the fuel was formally transferred to the intermediaries and those intermediaries are deemed to have acted in their own name, those intermediaries have at no time been in a position to dispose of the quantities supplied, since the power to dispose of the fuel belonged to the operators of the vessels as soon as the operator loaded it. In such a situation, transactions carried out by an economic operator cannot be classified as supplies made to intermediaries acting in their own name, but should be regarded as being supplies made directly to the operators of vessels, which may, on that basis, benefit from the exemption laid down in Article 148(a) of Directive 2006/112. (see paras 34-37, 40, 44, 46, 48-50, 52, 53, operative part) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 41)