Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:587
Date: 2013-09-26
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful;Action for failure to fulfil obligations - unfounded
Origin: Spain

summary of the main arguments 22. The Commission and the defendant Member States all agree that: (i) the aims of the margin scheme are to simplify procedures and ensure equitable collection of VAT revenue without otherwise derogating from the VAT system; (ii) while it is now common for travel or holiday packages to be put together by one travel agent or tour operator and sold to another before final sale to the traveller or holidaymaker, that was not the case when the Sixth Directive was adopted in 1977; (iii) a uniform interpretation is necessary to ensure a harmonised application of the VAT rules in all Member States which does not differentiate between travel agents; (iv) the customer approach embodies the interpretation best suited to achieve the aims of the margin scheme; and (v) that approach is in fact followed in the defendant Member States. Since these points are all undisputed, it does not seem useful to set out any detailed argument on them here; moreover, I can accept all these points, and I shall not devote any further consideration to them in my assessment below. Suffice it to say that, as regards (i) and (iv), I have set out the essentials in my presentation of the margin scheme, (14) that (ii) and (v) are agreed facts and that (iii) is uncontroversial. 23. While there is no dispute as to the need for a single, harmonised interpretation throughout the Union, the Commission considers that the broader interpretation involved in the customer approach cannot be achieved without a change to the legislation (the de lege ferenda view), whereas the defendant Member States consider that the provisions as they stand can – and should – receive that broader interpretation (the de lege lata view). 24. The lynchpin of the Commission’s argument is linguistic. In only one of five instances, only one of the six original language versions of Article 26 of the Sixth Directive used the term ‘customer’; in all other instances and in all other language versions – in particular in that in which the final text was debated and approved – the term ‘traveller’ was used throughout. The legislature’s intention was thus clearly that the margin scheme should be confined to cases in which the travel agent’s sale was direct to the traveller. (15) 25. In addition, in the Commission’s view, two phrases used in the provision would not otherwise make sense. If the meaning were ‘customer’, the words ‘in its own name’ in Article 26(1) of the Sixth Directive (Article 306(1) of Directive 2006/112) would be redundant, as travel agents always act in their own name vis-à-vis their customers (those who buy directly from them), though not always vis-à-vis travellers (who may not be the same persons). And in Article 26(2) of the Sixth Directive (Articles 307 and 308 of Directive 2006/112), the phrases ‘supplied … to the traveller’ and ‘to be paid by the traveller’ would be illogical if the purchaser of the service were another travel agent: where a package put together by one travel agent is sold to another travel agent before being sold to the traveller, how can the first travel agent’s margin (the basis of assessment for VAT) be calculated if the package is to be ‘treated as a single service supplied by [that] travel agent to the traveller’ but the second travel agent applies his own margin? 26. The Commission also stresses that, according to settled case-law, provisions which are in the nature of exceptions to a principle must be interpreted strictly. (16) The margin scheme is an exception to the principle of taxation at each stage in the chain of transactions and deduction of input tax at each stage prior to the retail stage. (17) 27. Although it agrees that the customer approach would be better suited to achieving the aims of the margin scheme, the Commission emphasises that Member States are required to apply the VAT legislation of the Union even if they consider it to be less than perfect. (18) 28. None the less, the Commission specifies that, in its view (which it appears to derive from the purpose of the scheme rather than from any words in the legislation), the margin scheme should apply when a business, which (as a legal person) cannot itself be a ‘traveller’, purchases a travel package to be used by its staff. What matters is simply that the package should not be sold on to the actual traveller. 29. By contrast, the defendant Member States (19) accentuate the need to ensure achievement of the aims pursued by the margin scheme. 30. As regards the Commission’s main linguistic point, they stress that the wording used in one language version of an EU provision cannot serve as the sole basis for its interpretation or be made to override the other language versions. Where there is divergence between language versions, the provision must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part. (20) Such a teleological approach has been taken by the Court to hold that the margin scheme applies to a hotelier who offers his customers a package including accommodation, return transport and a coach excursion, the transport services being bought in from third parties, even though he is not, formally speaking, a travel agent or tour operator. (21) It should likewise be applied here to ensure that the aims of the scheme are correctly achieved. 31. The absurdities which the Commission sees in the use of certain phrases are, in the Member States’ view, inconclusive. The English version of the provisions (from which all the other ‘customer’ versions derive) does not speak of travel agents who deal with their customers in their own name but who deal with customers (not necessarily directly their own) in their own name. There is thus no obvious redundancy in such wording – which is, in any event, retained by the Commission in its proposed amendment. However, since it is specified that the margin scheme is not to apply to travel agents who act solely as intermediaries, the words ‘in their own name’ could be redundant on any interpretation. And, as the Court has held, the words ‘to be paid by the traveller’ cannot be interpreted literally but may include payments by third parties. (22) 32. The defendant Member States point out also that the Court has consistently held that the requirement for strict interpretation of exceptions to the principles of the VAT system does not mean that the terms used should be construed in such a way as to deprive exceptions of their intended effect, and that any interpretation must be consistent with the objectives pursued and comply with the principle of fiscal neutrality. (23) 33. The Commission’s reference to Case C‑304/05 Commission v Spain, (24) the Member States submit, is not relevant. That case concerned a provision of the Sixth Directive whose interpretation was clear from its wording. Here, it is quite evident that the wording is capable of giving rise to different interpretations, and has indeed done so. Assessment 34. In these proceedings, the Court finds itself in an invidious position. No consistent pattern can be seen in the way in which the existing language versions of Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112 use the words ‘customer’ and ‘traveller’ (neither of which is defined). A Commission proposal to rectify the situation (not itself a model of linguistic consistency) has failed to meet with agreement in the Council, to which it was submitted more than a decade ago. There would appear to be, if not stalemate, at least insufficient shared willingness to determine a uniform approach. There are two, mutually incoherent, interpretations, in favour of each of which arguments can be advanced. Eight Member States interpret the provisions in one way (formerly at least 13 did so), while the remainder – none of which has sought to intervene in order to submit its own point of view – interpret them in the other, without either approach being necessarily related to whether, in the relevant languages, Directive 2006/112 uses the word ‘traveller’ or ‘customer’. 35. It is hard to avoid the impression that the Court is being called upon to decide a matter of VAT policy (and of legislative drafting) which has proved beyond the capabilities or the willingness of the Member States and the legislature. 36. Be that as it may, the Court must provide a legal interpretation of the current text which will determine whether the Commission’s actions are (as regards the issue with which this Opinion is concerned) well-founded or not. 37. In that context, the number of Member States which have adopted one approach or the other cannot in my view be a factor of any legal relevance to the Court’s analysis (even if it might be a political consideration of some relevance for the legislature). Whatever the outcome of that analysis, a significant number of Member States will be called upon to amend their legislation. By the same token, it seems to me that little persuasive value can be attached to any practical difficulties which might arise for travel agents under either interpretation if it were applied uniformly – other, of course, than those which the margin scheme is specifically designed to avert. Neither approach is likely to be perfect in practice but, if at least eight (previously, at least 13) Member States have been able to implement the provisions in a particular way over a significant period, any difficulties entailed by that implementation (taken in isolation, rather than as part of an internally conflicting whole) appear unlikely to be decisive. 38. If the provisions governing the margin scheme were unequivocal, their clear meaning should in principle prevail, even if that were to weaken to some extent the achievement of the aims of the margin scheme. In my view, however, they leave room for interpretation, and the Court must have regard to the purpose and general framework of that scheme and to its own previous rulings in that context. (25) 39. It seems unprofitable to seek an answer though detailed analysis of the haphazard way in which the terms ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’ or their equivalents are now used in the different language versions of Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112. The Commission stresses that the word ‘customer’ was used only once in only one of the six original language versions of Article 26 of the Sixth Directive and has explained how that anomaly arose and was subsequently propagated. It is convinced – and I see no need to cast doubt on that conviction – that the Council’s intention was to use the word ‘traveller’ throughout. 40. However, I do not think one can necessarily infer, from an intention to use the word ‘traveller’ consistently, a concomitant intention to confine application of the margin scheme to situations in which the travel agent deals directly with the physical person who is going to consume or enjoy the services provided. 41. It is true that, taking the word at its face value, it is difficult to interpret ‘traveller’ as including ‘another travel agent’. However, a contextual reading which has regard to the purpose and general scheme of the provisions may lead to a broader interpretation. 42. On the one hand, the word ‘traveller’ cannot be given a rigorously literal interpretation in the context of the margin scheme. For Robert Louis Stevenson, to travel hopefully may have been a better thing than to arrive, (26) but he might have felt less hopeful had he been facing delayed flights, cramped seating in crowded aircraft or tasteless food on tiny plastic trays. For many if not most modern holidaymakers, the focus has shifted: it is the destination rather than the voyage which counts, (27) and one may book a resort holiday or other accommodation through a travel agent while arranging one’s own means of arrival. The latter was, specifically, the case with the ‘motoring holidays’ in Van Ginkel, (28) which the Court held to fall within the margin scheme. Moreover, it is clear that one person may buy a travel package to be used by another, but it would be surprising if the VAT treatment of the purchase were to depend on whether the purchaser was the actual traveller or a relative, holiday companion etc. Nor indeed is there any reason why a holiday booked through a travel agent should involve any significant travel at all: it might be more convenient (or perhaps cheaper, in the case of promotional offers) to book an inclusive stay at a spa resort in one’s own home town through a travel agent rather than directly. (29) For the purposes of the margin scheme, therefore, the ‘traveller’ is not necessarily one who ‘travels’, and actual ‘travel facilities’ or an actual ‘journey’ need not form part of the package in respect of which the travel agent is required to apply the scheme. 43. On the other hand, without there being any need to draw specific conclusions from the ways in which ‘customer’ or its equivalent has been used in different language versions, the mere fact that the term was allowed to insinuate itself into the legislation and there to multiply tends to belie the view that the legislature has ever attached decisive importance to the use of the word ‘traveller’. It may be noted, moreover, that the increasing use of the term ‘customer’ in the legislative provisions has accompanied the increasing frequency of sales of holiday or travel packages between travel agents. 44. It seems to me, therefore, that a legislative intention to use a single term to designate the person buying travel, accommodation or similar services from a travel agent – and ‘traveller’ was a convenient term to use – does not require the meaning of that term to be confined to a particularly narrow category of such persons. 45. Nor, in any event, does the Commission itself seek to interpret ‘traveller’ literally: it includes under the term, for example, a business entity which buys services for the use of its employees, the only condition being in its view that the package must not be sold on to whoever is the final consumer. 46. I thus cannot regard the text of the provisions governing the margin scheme as unequivocal, even on the assumption that the original intention was to use the term ‘traveller’ – which is itself not free from ambiguity – throughout. 47. That being so, the term may in my view be interpreted so as to extend to customers other than the physical persons who actually enjoy the travel or holiday services purchased from a travel agent (or, as the Commission suggests, than those who buy for the benefit of such persons), and indeed so as to include other travel agents who will then sell the services on. Given the uncertainty as between language versions, it should be so interpreted if that is required by the purpose and general framework of the margin scheme. The Court has already, in the light of such a requirement, interpreted ‘travel agent’ to include a hotelier offering an accommodation package which comprises transport and excursions and a trader organising language and study trips abroad. (30) A further parallel can be drawn with the Court’s interpretation of the phrase ‘persons taking part in sport’ – which, as it acknowledged, refers in normal usage only to natural persons – as capable of including corporate persons and unincorporated associations for the purposes of Article 13A(1)(m) of the Sixth Directive (now Article 132(1)(m) of Directive 2006/112). (31) 48. Crucially, to exclude the sale of travel or holiday packages by a travel agent or tour operator to another travel agent who will sell it on from the application of the margin scheme would run directly counter to the two aims which – as is common ground in these proceedings – the scheme was intended to achieve. 49. The Court has recognised the aim of adapting the normal rules on place of taxation, taxable amount and deduction of input tax to take account of the multiplicity of services in a travel or holiday package and of places in which they are provided, which entail practical difficulties for travel agents and tour operators of such a nature as to obstruct their operations. (32) When travel agent A puts together a package comprising, say, a coach tour of several Member States, with accommodation, restaurant meals and visits to tourist attractions in each of them, and sells that package to travel agent B, who sells it on to the natural persons who will participate in the tour, the practical difficulties entailed are all encountered by A, not by B. Even if the place of supply of A’s sale to B is not in the Member State in which B is established, B’s difficulties are in principle no greater than those involved in a simple cross-border supply – namely, the need to obtain a refund or deduction of input tax paid on a transaction in another Member State. B’s situation alone does not necessarily justify application of a special margin scheme. A, by contrast, has to deal with input tax on different services at different rates in different Member States – the very situation which the margin scheme is designed to alleviate. Yet under the traveller approach advocated by the Commission in the present proceedings it is B alone who will benefit from the scheme, while A will not. 50. Comparable considerations apply in relation to the second aim, that of ensuring that VAT revenue is correctly allocated to the Member State in which the relevant service is in fact provided and received. If, in the above example, the margin scheme is not applied to A’s sale to B, A will recover the amounts of VAT charged on services provided to and enjoyed by the tourists in the Member States visited, a process which is likely to result in a net payment to him of much or all of those amounts (33) and a loss of VAT revenue in those Member States. Although harmonised at EU level, VAT is a national tax, levied in each Member State at its own rates and under its own detailed rules. It is classified in Article 1(2) of Directive 2006/112 as ‘a general tax on consumption’. Although Title V (Articles 31 to 61) of Directive 2006/112 lays down particular rules as regards the place of supply where there is a cross-border element, it is inherent in the idea of a tax on consumption that it should crystallise at the time and place of actual consumption (that is to say, for a non-cumulative multistage tax like VAT, final consumption at the end of the chain of supply). In the situation in issue, the relevant services are physically both supplied and consumed in the same Member State. The cross-border element is, as regards those services, essentially artificial – the supply in A’s Member State is of A’s services, not of those of the service providers in the Member States visited. It would therefore run counter not only to the aims of the margin scheme but also to a fundamental principle of the common VAT system which that scheme is designed to uphold if revenue derived from consumption in one Member State were to accrue to the benefit of another Member State in which none of the services directly giving rise to that consumption were provided. 51. It is true that derogations from the general regime should be interpreted strictly but, as the Member States have pointed out, that does not mean that the terms used should be construed in such a way as to deprive them of their intended effect. Here, the Commission’s proposed interpretation would do just that. (34) 52. On that basis, I am compelled to conclude not only that the customer approach is better suited than the traveller approach to achieve the aims of the margin scheme, but also that the latter actually frustrates those aims in situations of the kind in which the Commission argues that it should be applied. Such a conclusion seems to me sufficient to justify dismissing the Commission’s actions in all these cases (subject to the proviso that, in Case C‑189/11 Commission v Spain, there are three further issues to determine). 53. That said, it may be helpful, briefly, to mention any other major points made by the defendant Member States which also support that view and to respond to certain arguments raised by the Commission. 54. First, the Member States stress the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the VAT system, in the sense that VAT should not be applied in a way which distorts competition between suppliers. (35) They point out that, because (as I have explained in points 49 and 50 above) the practical and administrative difficulties involved in putting a travel package together are not alleviated by the Commission’s interpretation where the package is sold to another travel agent, that interpretation favours larger tour operators and travel agencies over smaller ones, which are less likely to have the necessary resources to cope with those difficulties. The latter are therefore less able to put packages together for sale to other travel agents. The Commission’s interpretation unjustifiably involves, moreover, treating a taxable person’s supplies differently for VAT purposes on the basis of the identity of his customer rather than on any criterion linked to the supply or the supplier. 55. I agree with that assessment. The criterion of size will give larger agencies an advantage over smaller agencies also in other ways, but application of the VAT rules should not add further discrimination. It is also true that the principle of neutrality, in this sense, is not a rule of primary law which can condition the validity of a provision, but a principle of interpretation, to be applied concurrently with other such principles. (36) Here, however, its application buttresses the view which I have reached on the basis of the principle which requires a provision whose meaning is not clear (particularly where there are conflicting language versions) to be interpreted in the light of the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part. 56. Second, the Commission has argued that the phrase ‘in their own name’ in Article 306 of Directive 2006/112 is redundant if the customer approach is adopted, since travel agents always deal with their customers in their own name (were that not so, the persons with whom they were dealing would not be their customers). 57. That argument seems weak. While it is true that a word or phrase used in legislation should in principle be presumed to serve its own intended purpose, I cannot accept that an interpretation which does no more than avoid redundancy should be made to prevail over one which much more clearly serves the intended purpose of the body of rules as a whole. Redundancy is not unknown in legislation. Here, the phrase ‘in their own name’ may easily be seen as simply an anticipation of the exclusion, in the following sentence, of travel agents acting solely as intermediaries. I note, moreover, that the Commission’s 2002 proposal to amend Article 26 of the Sixth Directive, which is supposed to implement the customer approach, continues to use the words ‘where the travel agents deal with customers in their own name’ – thus perpetuating the alleged redundancy. 58. Third, the Commission submits that the definition of ‘margin’ in Article 308 of Directive 2006/112 is unworkable if the customer approach is taken. If travel agent A puts together a package and sells it to travel agent B who sells it to a traveller, how can A’s margin be the difference between the VAT-exclusive price paid by the traveller and the actual cost to A of the goods and services provided by other taxable persons for the direct benefit of the traveller, when the price paid by the customer includes not only A’s margin but also B’s margin? 59. If, as the legislation stands, the word ‘traveller’ should, as I believe, be construed broadly to include customers of different kinds, in particular other travel agents, the problem disappears. (37) Moreover, as the Member States have pointed out, the words ‘to be paid by the traveller’ cannot be interpreted literally in that context. (38) 60. Fourth, the Commission refers to Case C‑204/03 Commission v Spain, (39) to the effect that Member States may not disregard express provisions of the VAT directives in order to produce a result more closely in line with the overall aims of that legislation. 61. Here again, I agree with the Member States that the case-law does not preclude an interpretation which produces such a result unless it runs counter to a clear and unequivocal provision. The provisions in issue in the present proceedings are, as has been amply demonstrated, not unequivocal. 62. Finally, however, it must be acknowledged that the customer approach is not a panacea for all possible imperfections in the margin scheme. Its most salient drawback is set out by the Commission in the explanatory memorandum to its proposed amendments to the Sixth Directive: ‘Several Member States also raised the issue of business trips and the problem this causes to companies, who are, in effect, final consumers of travel packages, as they will be unable, under the proposed new provisions of Article 26, to deduct the residual input VAT. If they order a travel package from a travel agent, they will [be] charged a price VAT included, and therefore this company will not be able to deduct this amount of VAT although this travel package is used for business purposes. This will cause residual VAT in the intermediary consumption stage, which is contrary to the basic principle of neutrality of the Community VAT system.’ (40) 63. Although acknowledged, that issue is not addressed in the proposed amendment. In the present proceedings, the Commission puts forward an interpretation under which the term ‘traveller’ would include companies purchasing business trips – thus, in effect, applying the customer approach to that extent (and, in so doing, embedding residual VAT at an intermediary stage). 64. The problem could be averted only if the traveller approach were adopted in its strictest interpretation, so as to apply the margin scheme only where the travel agent’s customer was a natural person consuming the services sold. Where the customer was a taxable legal person, the normal regime would apply and, if the services acquired were used for strictly business purposes and constituted cost components of the business’s taxable outputs, all the VAT on those services, in addition to that on the travel agent’s margin, could be deducted from the tax on those outputs and the principle of VAT neutrality for taxable persons would be respected. 65. That is not, however, the interpretation which the Commission proposes for the traveller approach. Moreover, the aims of the margin scheme are, as is agreed, specifically to simplify procedures and to ensure correct allocation of VAT revenue. There is no suggestion that it was intended also to guarantee full deductibility of input tax on travel services used for taxable business purposes, even if that would have been a desirable aim. 66. The existence of the issue which I have described does not, therefore, lead me to revise my conclusion that the customer approach should apply on a correct interpretation of the margin scheme, with the result that the Commission’s actions should be dismissed in so far as they seek declarations to the effect that, by permitting travel agents to apply the margin scheme to the provision of travel services to persons other than travellers, the Member States have failed to fulfil their obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112. Costs 67. Under Article 138(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. All the defendant Member States have applied for costs. Under Article 140(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Member States which intervene in proceedings are to bear their own costs. Conclusion 68. In the light of all the above considerations, I am of the opinion that – subject to the analysis and conclusions which I set out in my separate Opinion in Case C-189/11 concerning the remaining complaints against the Kingdom of Spain – the Court should: – dismiss the actions brought by the Commission, – order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Member States as defendants, and – order the Member States to bear the costs which they have incurred as interveners. Annex I Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112 (emphasis added) ‘Article 306 1. Member States shall apply a special VAT scheme, in accordance with this Chapter, to transactions carried out by travel agents who deal with customers in their own name and use supplies of goods or services provided by other taxable persons, in the provision of travel facilities. This special scheme shall not apply to travel agents where they act solely as intermediaries and to whom point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 [(41)] applies for the purposes of calculating the taxable amount. 2. For the purposes of this Chapter, tour operators shall be regarded as travel agents. Article 307 Transactions made, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 306, by the travel agent in respect of a journey shall be regarded as a single service supplied by the travel agent to the traveller. The single service shall be taxable in the Member State in which the travel agent has established his business or has a fixed establishment from which the travel agent has carried out the supply of services. Article 308 The taxable amount and the price exclusive of VAT, within the meaning of point (8) of Article 226, in respect of the single service provided by the travel agent shall be the travel agent’s margin, that is to say, the difference between the total amount, exclusive of VAT, to be paid by the traveller and the actual cost to the travel agent of supplies of goods or services provided by other taxable persons, where those transactions are for the direct benefit of the traveller. Article 309 If transactions entrusted by the travel agent to other taxable persons are performed by such persons outside the Community, the supply of services carried out by the travel agent shall be treated as an intermediary activity exempted pursuant to Article 153. If the transactions are performed both inside and outside the Community, only that part of the travel agent’s service relating to transactions outside the Community may be exempted. Article 310 VAT charged to the travel agent by other taxable persons in respect of transactions which are referred to in Article 307 and which are for the direct benefit of the traveller shall not be deductible or refundable in any Member State.’ Annex II Article 26 of the Sixth Directive (emphasis added) ‘Special scheme for travel agents 1. Member States shall apply value added tax to the operations of travel agents in accordance with the provisions of this Article, where the travel agents deal with customers in their own name and use the supplies and services of other taxable persons in the provision of travel facilities. This Article shall not apply to travel agents who are acting only as intermediaries and accounting for tax in accordance with Article 11A(3)(c). [(42)] In this Article travel agents include tour operators. 2. All transactions performed by the travel agent in respect of a journey shall be treated as a single service supplied by the travel agent to the traveller. It shall be taxable in the Member State in which the travel agent has established his business or has a fixed establishment from which the travel agent has provided the services. The taxable amount and the price exclusive of tax, within the meaning of Article 22(3)(b), in respect of this service shall be the travel agent’s margin, that is to say, the difference between the total amount to be paid by the traveller, exclusive of value added tax, and the actual cost to the travel agent of supplies and services provided by other taxable persons where these transactions are for the direct benefit of the traveller. 3. If transactions entrusted by the travel agent to other taxable persons are performed by such persons outside the Community, the travel agent’s service shall be treated as an exempted intermediary activity under Article 15(14). Where these transactions are performed both inside and outside the Community, only that part of the travel agent’s service relating to transactions outside the Community may be exempted. 4. Tax charged to the travel agent by other taxable persons on the transactions described in paragraph 2 which are for the direct benefit of the traveller, shall not be eligible for deduction or refund in any Member State.’ Annex III Terminology used in the different language versions OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SHARPSTON delivered on 6 June 2013 (43) Case C‑189/11 European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (VAT – Special scheme for travel agents) 1. I deliver a joint Opinion today in the present case, together with Cases C‑193/11 Commission v Poland, C‑236/11 Commission v Italy, C‑269/11 Commission v Czech Republic, C‑293/11 Commission v Greece, C‑296/11 Commission v France, C‑309/11 Commission v Finland and C‑450/11 Commission v Portugal. That Opinion is confined to one issue which is common to all eight cases (and which is the only issue in the other seven cases): whether, on a correct interpretation of Directive 2006/112, (44) the special VAT margin scheme for travel agents (‘the margin scheme’) set out in Articles 306 to 310 of that directive applies regardless of whether the customer is actually the traveller or not (‘the customer approach’) or whether it applies only where the customer is the traveller (‘the traveller approach’). 2. For the background to the EU legislation on the margin scheme, for the procedural background to the infringement proceedings and for all matters relating to the issue which is common to all eight cases, I refer to that Opinion, in which I conclude that the Commission’s actions should be dismissed in so far as they seek declarations to the effect that, by permitting travel agents to apply the margin scheme when providing travel services to persons other than travellers, the Member States have failed to fulfil their obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112 (for the text of those provisions and of Article 26 of the Sixth Directive, see Annexes I and II to my joint Opinion). 3. In the present Opinion, I address three additional issues raised by the Commission, which concern only the Spanish legislation relating to the margin scheme and are unrelated to that main issue or any of the other seven infringement proceedings. They concern, respectively, the exclusion from the margin scheme of situations in which retail travel agents sell travel packages organised by wholesale agents, (45) the statement of the amount of VAT included in the price and the determination of the taxable amount over a tax period. I shall set out here only the legislation and argument relevant to those issues. EU legislation 4. Article 1(2) of Directive 2006/112 reads: ‘The principle of the common system of VAT entails the application to goods and services of a general tax on consumption exactly proportional to the price of the goods and services, however many transactions take place in the production and distribution process before the stage at which the tax is charged. On each transaction, VAT, calculated on the price of the goods or services at the rate applicable to such goods or services, shall be chargeable after deduction of the amount of VAT borne directly by the various cost components. The common system of VAT shall be applied up to and including the retail trade stage.’ 5. Article 73 of Directive 2006/112 provides: ‘In respect of the supply of goods or services, other than as referred to in Articles 74 to 77, [(46)] the taxable amount shall include everything which constitutes consideration obtained or to be obtained by the supplier, in return for the supply, from the customer or a third party, including subsidies directly linked to the price of the supply.’ 6. Articles 168 and 169 of Directive 2006/112 are among those which regulate the right to deduct input tax. In essence, under Article 168, where a taxable person uses goods or services supplied by another taxable person for the purposes of his taxed output transactions, all within the same Member State, he is entitled to deduct the VAT due or paid by him on the supplies of those goods or services from the VAT which he is liable to pay. Article 169 adds certain other purposes for which the inputs may be used in order for VAT on them to be deductible from output tax. They include, under (a), transactions carried out outside the Member State in which VAT is due or paid, in respect of which VAT would be deductible if they had been carried out within that Member State. In that regard, Article 5(a) of Directive 2008/9 (47) requires each Member State to refund to any taxable person not established in its territory any VAT charged to him there, in so far as the supplies in question are used for the purposes of, inter alia, transactions referred to in Article 169(a) of Directive 2006/112. 7. Article 220 of Directive 2006/112 requires every taxable person to ensure that an invoice is issued in respect of, inter alia, supplies of goods or services which he has made to another taxable person or to a non-taxable legal person. 8. Article 226 of Directive 2006/112 provides, in particular: ‘Without prejudice to the particular provisions laid down in this Directive, only the following details are required for VAT purposes on invoices issued pursuant to Articles 220 and 221: … (10) the VAT amount payable, except where a special arrangement is applied under which, in accordance with this Directive, such a detail is excluded; …’ Spanish legislation 9. Law No 37/1992 is the basic legislative text governing VAT in Spain. Articles 141 to 147 regulate the margin scheme. The Commission cites the following provisions: ‘Article 141 1. The special scheme for travel agents shall apply to: 1. Transactions carried out by travel agents when they deal with travellers in their own name and use goods or services supplied by other business or professional undertakings in the provision of travel. For the purposes of this special scheme, accommodation or transport services, whether provided singly or as a package, together with any complementary or ancillary services, shall be considered to be travel. 2. Transactions carried out by tour operators in the circumstances set out in the previous subparagraph; 2. The special scheme for travel agents shall not apply to the following transactions: 1. Sales to the public by retail travel agents of travel organised by wholesale agents. …’ ‘Article 142 In transactions to which this special scheme applies, taxable persons shall not be required to indicate separately on their invoices amounts passed on which, where they are present, are to be deemed to be included in the price of the transaction. In transactions carried out for other business or professional undertakings, comprising only supplies of goods or services falling entirely within the territorial scope of the tax, the invoice may indicate, at the request of the person concerned and under the heading “amounts of VAT included in the price”, a figure obtained by multiplying the total price of the transaction by six and dividing the result by 100. Such amounts shall be regarded as being directly passed on to and borne by the business or professional undertaking which is the recipient of the supply.’ ‘Article 146 1. Taxable persons may choose to determine their taxable amount on a transaction by transaction basis or globally for each tax period. The choice shall be effective for all transactions to which the special scheme applies carried out by the taxable person for a period of at least five years and, in the absence of any intervening declaration to the contrary, for subsequent years. 2. Global determination for each tax period of the taxable amount in respect of transactions to which the special scheme applies shall be effected as follows: 1. The actual overall cost, including tax, of supplies of goods or services made by other business or professional undertakings to the agency during the relevant tax period, which are used in the provision of travel for the benefit of the traveller, shall be subtracted from the overall price, including value added tax, charged to customers in respect of transactions for which the chargeable event occurred during the same period. 2. The global taxable amount shall be determined by multiplying the result by 100 and dividing the product by 100 plus the standard rate of tax laid down in Article 90 of this Law. [(48)] 3. The taxable amount shall never be negative. However, where the taxable amount is determined globally, any sum by which the amount to be subtracted exceeds the amount from which it is to be subtracted may be added to the amounts to be subtracted during the tax periods immediately following.’ Declaration sought 10. I have dealt with the Commission’s complaint concerning the application of the customer approach in my joint Opinion, concluding that it should be dismissed. In addition, the Commission asks the Court to declare that – by excluding from the margin scheme sales to the public, by retail agents acting in their own name, of travel services organised by wholesale agents, – by authorising travel agents, in certain circumstances, to charge in the invoice an overall amount that is not related to the actual VAT charged to the customer, and by authorising the latter, where he is a taxable person, to deduct that overall amount from the VAT payable, and – by authorising travel agents, in so far as they benefit from the special scheme, to determine their taxable amount globally for each tax period, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 73, 168, 169, 226 and 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112, and to order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. Exclusion of sales by retail travel agents of travel services organised by wholesale agents Argument 11. The Commission considers that, in accordance with Article 306 of Directive 2006/112, the margin scheme should always apply to ‘sales to the public by retail travel agents of travel services organised by wholesale agents’, except where the retail agents are acting not in their own name but as intermediaries. However, Article 141(2)(1) of Law No 37/1992 excludes all such sales from the scope of the scheme, not only according to its clear terms but also according to the Spanish authorities’ own interpretation. To interpret Article 141(2)(1) as concerned only with cases where the travel agent is acting in the name of another (which is Spain’s contention) would be to deprive it of any useful purpose, since that situation is already covered by Article 141(1)(1). Nor would it explain why the provision is confined to cases where that other person is a wholesale travel agent. Article 141(2)(1) of Law No 37/1992 is, at the very least, ambiguous and therefore contrary to Article 306 of Directive 2006/112. 12. Spain agrees that the margin scheme should apply in the way described by the Commission. It asserts that the disputed provision merely clarifies the fact that, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 306(1) of Directive 2006/112, retail travel agents may not apply the scheme when they act simply as intermediaries, in the name and on behalf of wholesale agents. The interpretations to which the Commission refers are not binding. There is no ambiguity in Article 141(2)(1) of Law No 37/1992: because Article 141(1)(1) makes it clear that any transaction carried out by a travel agent in his own name falls within the scope of the scheme, it is clear that Article 141(2)(1) can concern only transactions other than those carried out in his own name. Assessment 13. The issue between the parties on this head of claim does not concern the interpretation of Directive 2006/112 but the effect of Article 141(2)(1) of Law No 37/1992, which the Commission considers to be incompatible with the interpretation of the directive on which both parties agree. 14. First of all, I note that the wording of that provision in no way indicates that its effect is limited to situations in which a retail travel agent acts merely as an intermediary, on behalf of a wholesale agent. On the face of it, it applies to all sales by a retail travel agent of travel services organised by a wholesale agent, whether the retail agent is acting as an intermediary or is purchasing the services from the wholesale agent and selling them in his own name. A rule having such an effect is, the parties agree, contrary to Article 306 of Directive 2006/112: when a travel agent is dealing with customers in his own name, the margin scheme must apply regardless of whether he acquired the services sold directly or from another travel agent or tour operator. 15. The Commission has produced excerpts from a collection of VAT precedents published by the Spanish Economy and Finance Ministry, showing non-binding notices issued by the Directorate-General for Revenue which confirm an interpretation to the effect that the disputed provision excludes from the margin scheme not only sales in which the retail agent is acting as an intermediary (which is consistent with Article 306 of Directive 2006/112) but also those in which he is selling them in his own name (which is not). 16. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the Commission has established a clear prima facie case and that this head of claim should be upheld unless Spain provides specific evidence to counter that produced by the Commission or some cogent reason for discounting it. 17. Spain has produced no evidence. It asserts that the disputed provision is in fact merely a clarification – and an unambiguous one – of the general rule that the margin scheme does not apply where a travel agent is not acting in his own name; the clarification is simply intended to cover the specific situation of retail and wholesale travel agents. It states further that the interpretative notices produced by the Commission are out of date and, in any event, not binding. 18. I do not consider that to be a sufficient rebuttal of the Commission’s case. The disputed provision is, as the Commission points out, both unnecessary (in that it repeats a rule stated earlier in the same article) and inadequate (in that it does not clearly indicate its scope) as a clarification. The Spanish Government’s contention that the provision is unambiguous and leaves no scope for interpretation seems disingenuous. The Commission has demonstrated that it has been interpreted in the past in a way quite different from that in which the Government now states that it is interpreted and is clearly to be interpreted. The fact that the past interpretations are not binding and may (though there is no concrete evidence for this) no longer be applied does not reduce the ambiguity. In the absence of any clear, binding indication that the provision concerns only cases in which the retail agent acts not in his own name but in the name and on behalf of the wholesale agent, operators are more than likely to apply the exclusion from the margin system in all the cases covered by the explicit terms of the provision. 19. I would therefore uphold this head of claim. Statement of the amount of VAT included in the price Argument 20. The Commission takes issue with two aspects of the second paragraph of Article 142 of Law No 37/1992. First, that provision allows travel agents to specify an ‘amount of VAT included in the price’ of a travel service equivalent to 6% of the total price of that service, and allows customers who are taxable persons to deduct that amount where the conditions for deduction are met. Under the margin scheme, however, the only VAT included in the price of a travel service is that charged on the travel agent’s margin. In its application, the Commission asserts that the travel agent must invoice a global, VAT-inclusive amount, and no VAT may be deducted by customers. Moreover, 6% does not correspond to any VAT rate applied in Spain. (49) Second, the provision in issue is discriminatory. It applies only to supplies made in Spain, so that no deduction at all is possible where the supplies are made in other Member States. Article 309 of Directive 2006/112, which concerns only supplies made outside the European Union, cannot justify such a provision. 21. Spain counters that the margin scheme does not preclude deduction of input tax where the relevant conditions are fulfilled. Article 310 of Directive 2006/112 precludes deduction of ‘VAT charged to the travel agent by other taxable persons in respect of transactions … and which are for the direct benefit of the traveller’ but does not concern the VAT due when a travel agent supplies a single service to his customer under the margin scheme. The amount of VAT in the price of that service should therefore be deductible in accordance with the normal rules. However, there is no guidance as to how that amount should be determined. The rule adopted in Spain seeks to solve the problem and does so in a way which is approximate but – being based on statistical analysis – broadly accurate, and which allows travel agents to maintain commercial secrecy as to their actual profit margins. The limitation of the rule to supplies made in Spain is, for its part, designed simply to exclude supplies made outside the European Union, in accordance with Article 309 of Directive 2006/112. 22. At the hearing, the Commission retreated somewhat from its stark position that, under the margin scheme, the travel agent must invoice a global, VAT-inclusive, amount and no VAT may be deducted by customers. It accepted that the provisions could be read to the effect that the VAT on the travel agent’s margin may be stated on the invoice (50) and, where the conditions for deduction are fulfilled, deducted by the customer. It considered, however, that that would not be a usual way for travel agents to do business, since it would mean disclosing the amount of their profit margin on the supply. (51) Assessment 23. As regards the indication and possible deduction of VAT on the travel agent’s margin, it seems to me that the Commission’s position at the hearing is preferable to that which it expressed in its written pleadings. Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112 provide no reason why the normal rules concerning invoicing and deduction should not operate within the confines of the margin scheme. It is explicitly provided that VAT included in the price of the supplies which the travel agent acquires for the benefit of the traveller cannot be deducted under that scheme. By contrast, the VAT due on the travel agent’s margin is nowhere excluded from deduction, and it should be possible for a taxable person to deduct that amount from his output tax under the normal rules, where the conditions for deduction are fulfilled. Nor is there anything in Articles 306 to 310 which derogates from the requirements of Articles 220 and 226 regarding the details required in an invoice issued to another taxable person or non-taxable legal person. 24. I therefore wonder whether the Commission went far enough at the hearing by regarding an invoice indicating the VAT on the travel agent’s margin as merely an option, unlikely to be exercised in practice. There may, it seems to me, be grounds for considering it a requirement. 25. However, that point has not been argued before the Court nor, in my view, need it be decided in order to rule on the present head of claim. I would therefore suggest that the Court should base its decision on the following considerations. 26. First, it is clear that the amount arrived at by the calculation set out in the second paragraph of Article 142 of Law No 37/1992 will rarely, if ever, correspond to any amount of VAT included in the price. At 6% of the tax-inclusive price, it is unlikely ever to correspond to the total amount of VAT on both the components of the travel package and the travel agent’s margin. If it did, to allow customers to deduct such a sum would be contrary to Article 310 of Directive 2006/112, which precludes deduction of VAT on components of a travel package. There is perhaps a greater chance of its corresponding to the amount of VAT on the travel agent’s margin – but the operative word is ‘chance’. In order for any amount of input VAT to be deductible, it must correspond exactly – and not merely approximately or by chance – to the amount of output VAT accounted for by the supplier to the tax authority. Any other result would offend against the principle of VAT neutrality. There would be a gain or loss of VAT for one or other of the taxable persons concerned or for the tax authority. 27. Second – although the above is in my view sufficient reason to uphold the Commission’s claim in this regard – application of the disputed provision is clearly limited to supplies made in Spain and not to supplies made within the European Union. Moreover, the Commission has produced tax authority decisions establishing that the limitation is in fact applied in that way, and does not simply exempt supplies made outside the Union, pursuant to Article 309 of Directive 2006/112. Thus, even if the disputed provision were otherwise in conformity with the rules governing the margin scheme, it would be discriminatory vis-à-vis travel services provided in Member States other than Spain. 28. I would therefore uphold this head of claim. Determination of the taxable amount over a tax period Argument 29. The Commission submits that nothing in Directive 2006/112 allows Member States to permit travel agents applying the margin scheme to calculate a single profit margin for all travel package transactions in a given tax period, as under Article 146 of Law No 37/1992. Article 73 et seq. of Directive 2006/112 refer to the taxable amount for individual supplies, and those provisions apply within the margin scheme, to the extent that it does not derogate from them. (52) The possibility of a global calculation is envisaged in the Commission’s proposed amendments to Article 26 of the Sixth Directive, (53) but is not available under Directive 2006/112 as it currently stands. Article 318 of that directive does allow Member States to provide for a similar simplification in the context of the margin scheme for taxable dealers, but there is no equivalent for the travel agents’ margin scheme. The option introduced in Spanish law could, moreover, lead to non-collection of amounts of VAT and a loss of the Union’s own resources. 30. Spain considers that the terms of Article 308 of Directive 2006/112 are sufficiently broad to allow the travel agent’s margin to be calculated globally for each tax period, as in the Spanish legislation. The provisions are optional, their aim is to simplify VAT procedures and they are neutral as regards their effect on revenue. Assessment 31. While the argument on this head of claim has not been extensive, it seems to me that the Commission’s position is essentially correct, on the basis of the provisions which it cites. Defining the principle of the common VAT system, the second paragraph of Article 1(2) of Directive 2006/112 specifies that VAT is to be chargeable on ‘each transaction’. Article 73 defines the taxable amount in terms of an individual supply. Moreover, a system of global calculation for each tax period, with the possibility of carrying over negative amounts to subsequent periods, renders it impossible for customers to ascertain how much VAT is included in their input supplies and thus to deduct any such tax where appropriate – and I have concluded above that it is at least possible, if not compulsory, within the margin scheme to apply the normal rules concerning the indication of VAT on the travel agent’s margin on invoices and its subsequent deduction by the customer. 32. Thus, even though I am not convinced by the Commission’s argument regarding a possible loss of the Union’s own revenue, for which it has provided no evidence, I would uphold this head of claim. Costs 33. Under Article 138(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads, the parties are to bear their own costs. However, if it appears justified in the circumstances of the case, the Court may order that one party, in addition to bearing its own costs, pay a proportion of the costs of the other party. In the present case, I consider that the Court should dismiss the Commission’s action in so far as it seeks a declaration to the effect that, by permitting travel agents to apply the margin scheme when providing travel services to persons other than travellers, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112; but uphold the three other heads of claim discussed in this Opinion. It therefore seems appropriate to order the Kingdom of Spain to pay three quarters of both parties’ costs and the Commission to pay one quarter of those costs. Under Article 140(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Member States which intervene in proceedings are to bear their own costs. Conclusion 34. Having regard to all the above considerations, together with those set out in my joint Opinion in this case and Cases C‑193/11 Commission v Poland, C‑236/11 Commission v Italy, C‑269/11 Commission v Czech Republic, C‑293/11 Commission v Greece, C‑296/11 Commission v France, C‑309/11 Commission v Finland and C‑450/11 Commission v Portugal, I am of the opinion that the Court should: – declare that, – by excluding, from the special scheme for travel agents laid down in Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, sales to the public, by retail agents acting in their own name, of travel services organised by wholesale agents, – by authorising travel agents, in certain circumstances, to charge in the invoice an overall amount that is not related to the actual VAT charged to the customer, and by authorising the latter, where he is a taxable person, to deduct that overall amount from the VAT payable, and – by authorising travel agents, in so far as they benefit from the special scheme, to determine their taxable amount globally for each tax period, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 73, 168, 169, 226 and 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112, – dismiss the remainder of the application, – order the Kingdom of Spain to bear three quarters of its own costs, together with three quarters of the Commission’s costs – order the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs, together with one quarter of the costs of the Kingdom of Spain, and – order the Member States which have intervened in the case to bear their own costs. 1 – Original language: English. 2 – Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1; ‘Directive 2006/112’). 3 – Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59). Article 1 states its purpose as being ‘to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to packages sold or offered for sale in the territory of the Community’. 4 – 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1; ‘the Sixth Directive’). Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112 merely recast the structure and wording of Article 26 of the Sixth Directive, without, in principle, bringing about any material change (see recital 3 in the preamble to Directive 2006/112). 5 – Under the provisions of, now, Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 23), which repealed and replaced Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11). 6 – Although the Commission’s definition of ‘traveller’ is in fact somewhat looser than that – see point 28 below. 7 – The Commission explained at the hearing that the text of the Sixth Directive was debated and agreed within the Council in its French version, which was intended to serve as the basis for all other languages; however, contrary to that intention, the final English text was in fact based on a parallel version in English, which had not been the basis of discussions. It cannot, however, be denied that the text was adopted in all six languages, each version being equally authentic. 8 – I reproduce the monolingual text of Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112 in Annex I to this Opinion, and of Article 26 of the Sixth Directive in Annex II. In both cases, I italicise the word ‘traveller’ or ‘customer’, as the case may be, or its equivalent, on each occurrence. In Annex III, I set out a table which indicates the word used in each provision, in each of the different language versions. At the hearing, the Commission stated that the Council had determined the final text in each language version of Directive 2006/112, without the Commission being in a position to react to any changes. 9 – Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the special scheme for travel agents (COM(2002) 64 final). 10 – That was, in any event, the intention. In fact, at least the French, Greek, Italian and Swedish versions of the proposed new provisions all seem to have retained the word ‘traveller’ in at least one instance. 11 – At point 4.1.2.1. 12 – Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia and the United Kingdom. The Netherlands amended its legislation at a later stage (from 1 April 2012) and parallel proceedings which had been brought against that Member State (Case C-473/11) were withdrawn. 13 – See Commission press releases IP/08/333 and IP/11/76. 14 – The aim of simplifying procedure for travel agents has, moreover, been repeatedly stressed by the Court (see, for example, Case C-31/10 Minerva Kulturreisen [2010] ECR I‑12889, paragraphs 17 and 18 and the case-law cited). The aim of correct allocation of tax yield was stressed by Advocate General Tizzano in his Opinion in First Choice Holidays (Case C‑149/01 [2003] ECR I‑6289, point 25, footnote 13). 15 – See, however, point 28 below. 16 – See, for a recent example, Case C‑360/11 Commission v Spain [2013] ECR, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited. 17 – See Article 1(2) of Directive 2006/112. 18 – Case C-204/03 Commission v Spain [2005] ECR I‑8359, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited. 19 – I do not think it useful here to attribute individual arguments – of which what follows is, in any event, only a summary – to individual Member States. 20 – See, for example, Case C-41/09 Commission v Netherlands [2011] ECR I‑831, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited. See also Case C‑296/95 EMU Tabac and Others [1998] ECR I‑1605, paragraph 36. 21 – Joined Cases C-308/96 and C-94/97 Madgett and Baldwin [1998] ECR I‑6229, paragraphs 18 to 27. See also Case C‑200/04 iSt [2005] ECR I‑8691, paragraph 22 et seq. 22 – First Choice Holidays, cited in footnote 14, paragraph 28 of the judgment. 23 – See, for a very recent example with regard to exemptions, Case C‑91/12 PCF Clinic AB [2013] ECR, paragraph 23. 24 – Cited in footnote 18; see, in particular, paragraph 25. 25 – See the case-law cited in footnote 20 above. 26 – Virginibus puerisque, iv, El Dorado (1881). 27 – There are cases of course in which the voyage or journey itself, or part of it, is the aim (certain cruises, for example, or legendary train journeys such as the Orient Express), and others in which the transport itself is the only service purchased from the travel agent (notably, perhaps, in the case of business travel). However, a significant part of travel agency business involves packages of which the services available at the destination are the central component, transport to and from that destination being simply an inevitable adjunct. 28 – Case C‑163/91 [1992] ECR I‑5723. 29 – In Minerva Kulturreisen, cited in footnote 14, the Court did rule that the margin scheme was not to apply to the sale by a travel agent of opera tickets in isolation ‘without provision of a travel service’, but it made clear that travel services included accommodation (see paragraphs 21 to 28 of the judgment). 30 – See, respectively, Madgett and Baldwin and iSt, both cited in footnote 21. 31 – Case C‑253/07 Canterbury Hockey Club and Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club [2008] ECR I‑7821, paragraph 26 et seq. I note that, in that case, the Commission had submitted that the provision was to be interpreted ‘not literally, but so as to ensure the effective application of the exemption for which it provides, on the basis of the supply of services in question and that, therefore, regard must be had not only to the formal, legal recipient of that supply, but also to its material recipient or effective beneficiary’ (see paragraph 25 of the judgment). 32 – See the case-law cited in footnote 14 above. 33 – That would not be the case only if A were both registered for VAT in each of those Member States and made supplies there on which the output VAT exceeded all his input VAT there. Even then, however, there would be a flow of VAT revenue from the Member States in which the services were in fact provided and enjoyed to the Member State in which A was established, which would collect the output tax on his sale to B. 34 – See point 32 above. 35 – For the other sense of fiscal neutrality in the context of VAT, see footnote 40 below. 36 – See Case C‑44/11 Deutsche Bank [2012] ECR, paragraph 45. 37 – The difficulty is addressed in the Commission’s proposed amendments to Article 26 of the Sixth Directive, essentially by replacing the word ‘traveller’ by ‘customer’ throughout Article 26(3) (corresponding to the last sentence of Article 26(2) in the unamended version; there are also other changes, but they have no particular bearing on the point under discussion). That, it seems to me, demonstrates the largely contrived nature of the objection. 38 – See point 31 above. 39 – Cited in footnote 18 above. The Commission cites also Case C‑269/00 Seeling [2003] ECR I‑4101, paragraph 54. 40 – Document cited in footnote 9, point 2, penultimate paragraph. The principle of neutrality referred to here is that VAT should be neutral in its effect on taxable persons, who should not themselves bear the burden of the tax. 41 – Point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 concerns the use of a suspense account for repayment of expenditure in the name and for the account of a purchaser or customer. 42 – Article 11A(3)(c) was the predecessor to point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79. 43 – Original language: English. 44 – Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1; ‘Directive 2006/112’). Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112 replaced Article 26 of 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1; ‘the Sixth Directive’). 45 – Wholesale travel agents put together travel packages but do not sell them direct to the public. They sell either to retail travel agents who then (in their own name) sell the packages on to the public, or to the public via such retail agents who act (in the name of the wholesale agent) merely as intermediaries. 46 – Articles 74 to 77 concern, essentially, the taxable amount in the case of ‘self-supplies’ in which a taxable person uses goods or services supplied by his taxable business other than as normal taxable outputs. 47 – Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 23). 48 – The standard rate of VAT laid down in Article 90 is currently 21%. The operation thus involves multiplying by 100 and dividing by 121. 49 – I note that, according to the Commission document ‘VAT rates applied in the Member States of the European Union’, as of 14 January 2013 Spain applied, for example, the standard rate of 21% to hotel accommodation and admission to amusement parks (the rate for hotel accommodation is as given in the English version of the document, while the French and German versions give a rate of 10%; unfortunately, the Commission has not seen fit to provide any other language versions) and a reduced rate of 10% to the transport of passengers and restaurant services. 6% of the tax-inclusive price would amount to a tax rate of approximately 6.38%. 50 – A contrario, the Commission pointed out, Articles 325, 332 and 339 do preclude stating the amount of VAT on invoices issued under other comparable special schemes. 51 – The desire of traders to maintain confidentiality as to their profit margins is thus mentioned by both parties to these proceedings. It raises an interesting issue but not one which, in my view, is relevant to the outcome of the action. 52 – See Case C-149/01 First Choice Holidays [2003] ECR I‑6289, paragraph 26 et seq., concerning Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive, the predecessor to Article 73 of Directive 2006/112. 53 – See the proposed text of Article 26(4) in Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the special scheme for travel agents (COM(2002) 64 final).