CELEX: 62017CN0414
Language: en
Date: 2017-07-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-414/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 10 July 2017 — Arex CZ a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

11.9.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 300/24
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 10 July 2017 — Arex CZ a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
   (Case C-414/17)
   (2017/C 300/28)
   Language of the case: Czech
   
      Referring court
   
   Nejvyšší správní soud
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant (applicant at first instance): Arex CZ a.s.
   
      Other party (defendant at first instance): Odvolací finanční ředitelství
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Must any taxable person be regarded as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 138(2)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’)? If not, to which taxable persons does that provision apply?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If the Court of Justice’s answer is that Article 138(2)(b) of the VAT Directive applies to a situation such as that in the main proceedings (that is, the acquirer of the products is a taxable person registered for tax), must that provision be interpreted as meaning that, where the dispatch or transport of those products takes place in accordance with the relevant provisions of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (2) concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (3) (‘the Excise Duty Directive’), a supply connected with a procedure under the Excise Duty Directive must be regarded as a supply entitled to exemption under that provision, even though the conditions for exemption under Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive are not otherwise satisfied, having regard to the assignment of the transport of goods to another transaction?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the Court of Justice’s answer is that Article 138(2)(b) of the VAT Directive does not apply to a situation such as that in the main proceedings, is the fact that the goods are transported under an excise duty suspension arrangement decisive for deciding the question of which of several successive supplies the transport is to be ascribed to for the purposes of the right to exemption from VAT under Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
   
      (2)  OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12.
   
      (3)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.