Case C-73/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln, Germany) — Planzer Luxembourg Sàrl v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17(3) and (4) — Refund of VAT — Eighth VAT Directive — Refund of VAT to taxable persons not established inside the country — Articles 3(b) and 9, second paragraph — Annex B — Certificate of status as a taxable person — Legal scope — Thirteenth VAT Directive — Refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in Community territory — Article 1(1) — Concept of business )
Date: 2007-08-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, VAT, head office, interpretation of the law, redemption, type of business

C 199/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.8.2007

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg —
Interpretation of Article 47(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common
detailed rules for
the system of export
refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as
amended — Recognition by an authority, of its own motion, of
supporting documents not accompanied by an express reasoned
request for recognition of equivalence as constituting equivalent
proof

the application of

Operative part of the judgment

Article 47(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of
27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the appli-
cation of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2955/94 of 5 December
1994, does not apply to the direct export of products.

Where, however, as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the
exporter, the national export document proving that the products in
question have left the customs territory of the Community cannot be
produced, the national authorities competent for export refunds must,
in accordance with the objectives of Regulation No 3665/87, as
amended by Regulation No 2955/94, take into account of their own
motion equivalent means of proof and implied requests for documents
to be treated as equivalent. Those means of proof must nevertheless be
just as satisfactory for the purpose of the verification in accordance
with the detailed rules laid down by national law, provided that those
rules respect the scope and effectiveness of Community law.

Where the passing of the deadline for furnishing equivalent means of
proof is attributable to the competent national authorities, they cannot
rely on the 12-month period laid down by Article 47(2) of Regulation
No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2955/94, as against a
diligent exporter.

(1) OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 June 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Köln, Germany) — Planzer Luxembourg Sàrl v Bundeszen-
tralamt für Steuern

(Case C-73/06) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17(3) and (4) — Refund of
VAT — Eighth VAT Directive — Refund of VAT to taxable
persons not established inside the country — Articles 3(b)
and 9, second paragraph — Annex B — Certificate of status
as a taxable person — Legal scope — Thirteenth VAT Direc-
tive — Refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in
Community territory — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘business’)

(2007/C 199/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln, Germany

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Planzer Luxembourg Sàrl

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Köln —
Interpretation of Art.3(b) of and Annex B to the Eighth Council
Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisa-
tion 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) and of Article 1(1) of the Thirteenth Council
Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisa-
tion 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 Community territory (OJ 1986 L 326,
p. 40) — Refund of VAT to a taxable person established in the
territory of another Member State which is a subsidiary of a
company established in a non-member State — Meaning of ‘his
business’ and ‘a fixed establishment from which business trans-
actions are effected’

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(b) and the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Eighth
Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turn-
over taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to
taxable persons not established in the territory of the country must
be interpreted as meaning that the certificate in accordance with the

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/11

specimen in Annex B to that directive does in principle allow the
presumption that the person concerned is not only subject to VAT
in the Member State whose tax authorities issued it, but also that
he is established in that Member State.

Those provisions do not, however, imply that the tax authorities of
the Member State in which refund of input VAT is applied for are
prohibited, where they have doubts as to the economic reality of the
establishment whose address is given in that certificate, from veri-
fying that reality by having recourse to the administrative measures
made available for that purpose by Community legislation on VAT.

2. Article 1(1) of the Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of
17 November 1986 on the harmonisation of
the
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the
refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in
Community territory must be interpreted as meaning that the place
of a company's business is the place where the essential decisions
concerning its general management are taken and where the func-
tions of its central administration are exercised.

the laws of

(1) OJ C 201, 7.8.2004.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria di
secondo grado di Trento — Interpretation of Council Directive
2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community
framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity
(OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Compatibility of a national
law
providing for taxation of lubricating oils intended for use other
than as motor fuels or as heating fuels

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the
Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electri-
city, as amended by Council Directive 2004/75/EC of 29 April
2004, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such
as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the levying
of a tax on the consumption of
lubricating oils, where they are
intended for use, offered for sale or used other than as motor fuels or
as heating fuels.

(1) OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 July 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
Italy) — Fendt
tributaria di secondo grado di Trento,

Italiana Srl v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio Dogane di Trento

(Case C-145/06 and C-146/06 (1))

(Directive 2003/96/EC — Community framework for the
taxation of energy products and electricity — Scope of the
directive — Mineral oils — Lubricating oils used for purposes
other than as motor fuels or as heating fuels — Not included
taxation
— Repeal of Directive 92/81/EEC — National

scheme)

(2007/C 199/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Portugal) — Deutsche
Lufthansa AG v ANA-Aeroportos de Portugal SA

(Case C-181/06) (1)

(Air transport — Airports — Groundhandling — Levying of
a fee for ground administration and supervision)

(2007/C 199/18)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Commissione tributaria di secondo grado di Trento

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fendt Italiana Srl

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Ufficio Dogane di Trento

Defendant: ANA — Aeroportos de Portugal SA,