CELEX: 62015CA0263
Language: en
Date: 2016-06-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-263/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft., Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 9(1) — Definition of ‘taxable person for the purposes of value added tax’ and ‘economic activity’ — Article 24(1) — Definition of ‘supply of services’ — Agricultural engineering works — Construction and operation of a water disposal system by a non-profit company — Effect of the works being funded by means of State and EU aid)

8.8.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 287/12
            
         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft., Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)
   (Case C-263/15) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9(1) - Definition of ‘taxable person for the purposes of value added tax’ and ‘economic activity’ - Article 24(1) - Definition of ‘supply of services’ - Agricultural engineering works - Construction and operation of a water disposal system by a non-profit company - Effect of the works being funded by means of State and EU aid))
   (2016/C 287/16)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Kúria
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft., Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft.
   
      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of agricultural engineering works, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, by a non-profit company which engages in such commercial activities only on an ancillary basis, constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of that provision, notwithstanding the fact that those works have in large part been financed by State aid and that their operation gives rise only to revenue from modest fees, provided that that fee can be regarded as having a ‘continuing basis’ on account of the period of time during which it is to be charged.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 24 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of agricultural engineering works, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes a supply of services for consideration, on the ground that the services rendered are directly linked to the fee received or to be received, provided that that modest fee constitutes remuneration for the service supplied and notwithstanding the fact that performance of those services is a legal obligation. It is for the referring court to determine whether the amount of the fee received or to be received, qua consideration, means that there exists a direct link between the services supplied or to be supplied and that consideration, and consequently allows those services to be classified as being effected for consideration. In particular, the referring court will have to ascertain that the fee which the applicants in the main proceedings are planning to charge does not only partly remunerate the services supplied or to be supplied and that its amount has not been determined as a result of other possible factors that could, depending on the circumstances, call into question the direct link between the services supplied and the consideration.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.