Case C-223/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  21 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling of VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United Kingdom)) — University of Huddersfield Higher Education Corporation v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2), Article 5(1) and Article 6(1) — Economic activity — Supplies of goods — Supplies of services — Transaction designed solely to obtain a tax advantage)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: economic activity, interpretation of the law, lease, real property, tax exemption, university

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling of VAT and
Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United Kingdom)) — Univer-
sity of Huddersfield Higher Education Corporation v
Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 February
2006 — Commission of the European Communities v
Republic of Finland

(Case C-232/03) (1)

(Case C-223/03) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2),
Article 5(1) and Article 6(1) — Economic activity —
Supplies of goods — Supplies of services — Transaction
designed solely to obtain a tax advantage)

(2006/C 131/04)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: University
Corporation

of Huddersfield Higher

Education

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
Workers — Freedom of movement — Use of vehicles regis-
tered abroad and made available to the worker by the
employer residing abroad)

(2006/C 131/05)

Language of the Case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Martin and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-
Purokoski and T. Pynnä, acting as Agents)

Intervener: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (represented by: K. Manji, acting as Agent and P.
Whipple, barrister)

Defendant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal,
Manchester — Interpretation of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth
Council Directive 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) — Concept of supplies of goods and services
subject to value added tax — Concept of economic activities —
Contracts for lease and lease back having the sole aim of
obtaining a tax advantage

Operative part of the judgment

Transactions of the kind at issue in the main proceedings constitute
supplies of goods or services and an economic activity within the
meaning of Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2), Article 5(1) and
Article 6(1) 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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10
April 1995, provided that they satisfy the objective criteria on which
those concepts are based, even if they are carried out with the sole aim
of obtaining a tax advantage, without any other economic objective.

(1) OJ C 213, 06.09.2003

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Arts. 10
and 39 EC — Conditions for the use for vehicles registered
abroad and made available by their employer to workers
residing in Finland and employed abroad

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by preventing cross-frontier workers residing in
Finland and employed in another Member State from benefiting
from the use of company vehicles which are made available by
their employers established in another Member State and registered
in the latter State on the sole ground that
the cross-frontier
workers concerned reside on Finnish territory, into which the vehi-
cles belonging to their employers have been imported,

and

by preventing the cross-frontier workers concerned from benefiting,
for professional and private purposes, from the use of company
vehicles which are made available by their employers established in
another Member State and registered in the latter State, while
those vehicles are neither intended to be used mainly in Finland on
in fact, used in that way, on the sole
a permanent basis nor,
ground that those workers reside on Finnish territory, into which
the vehicles belonging to their employers have been imported,

the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 39 EC;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;