CELEX: 62016CB0615
Language: en
Date: 2017-11-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-615/16: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Giovanna Judith Kerr v Fazenda Pública (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 15(2) and Article 135(1)(f) — Rights to use immovable property — Exemptions — Scope — Concept of ‘negotiation’)

29.1.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 32/7
            
         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Giovanna Judith Kerr v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-615/16) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 15(2) and Article 135(1)(f) - Rights to use immovable property - Exemptions - Scope - Concept of ‘negotiation’))
   (2018/C 032/09)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   
      Referring court
   
   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Giovanna Judith Kerr
   
      Defendant: Fazenda Pública
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   Article 15(2) and Article 135(1)(f) 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 concept of ‘negotiation’, within the meaning of the latter provision, may relate to an activity, such as that developed by the applicant in the main proceedings, provided that that activity is that of an intermediary paid to provide a service to one of the parties to a contract concerning financial transactions in respect of title to property, that service consisting of taking the necessary steps to ensure that the vendor and buyer sign that contract, without the intermediary himself signing the contract and, in any event, without that intermediary having any interest in the content of that contract. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are fulfilled in the case before it.
   
      (1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.