Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:265
Date: 2013-04-25
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - unfounded
Origin: Netherlands

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 - European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Case C-65/11)  (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation allowing the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons that may be regarded as a single taxable person for purposes of VAT - Consultation of the VAT Committee) Language of the case: Dutch Parties Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis, R. Lyal and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents) Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. de Ree and M. Noort, acting as Agents) Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by C. Vang, subsequently by V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan acting as Agent, and by G. Clohessy, SC and N. Travers, BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, acting as Agent, and M. Hall, QC) Re: Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) - Inclusion of non-taxable persons in a VAT group - Failure to notify the VAT Committee of amendments to the implementation of the VAT group scheme Operative part of the judgment The Court: Dismisses the action. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs. ____________ 1 - OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.