CELEX: 62011CA0543
Language: en
Date: 2013-01-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-543/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Woningstichting Maasdriel v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Value-added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(k), read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) — Land which has not been built on — Building land — Definitions — Demolition work for the purposes of future construction — Exemption from VAT)

2.3.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 63/5
            
         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Woningstichting Maasdriel v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-543/11) (1)
   
   (Value-added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(k), read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) - Land which has not been built on - Building land - Definitions - Demolition work for the purposes of future construction - Exemption from VAT)
   2013/C 63/07
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Woningstichting Maasdriel
   
      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 135(1)(k), read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3), of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions provided for by the Directive — Supply of land which has not been built on.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 135(1)(k) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 12(1) and (3) therein, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for in Article 135(1)(k) does not cover the supply, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of land which has not been built on following the demolition of the building situated on it, even where, at the time of that supply, improvement works on the land, apart from that demolition, had not been carried out, where it is apparent from an overall assessment of the factual circumstances surrounding that transaction and prevailing at the time of supply, including the intention of the parties when it is supported by objective evidence, that, at that time, the land at issue was in fact intended to be built on, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.
   
      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.