CELEX: C1996/354/10
Language: en
Date: 1996-11-23 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 26 September 1996 in Case C-302/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof, The Hague): Étienne Debouche v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (Value added tax - Interpretation of Article 17 (2) and (3) (a) of Directive 77/388/EEC and of Article 3 (b) and the first paragraph of Article 5 of Directive 79/1072/EEC - Refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country)

No C 354/6             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                            23 . 11 . 96
 ( EEC ) No 1384/77 of 27 June 1977 ( OJ No L 157, 1977,              relating to turnover taxes — common system of value added
 p. 16 ), and on the validity of Commission Regulation ( EEC )        tax : uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p. 1 )
 No 1121 /87 of 23 April 1987 amending Regulations ( EEC )            and of Article 3 ( b ) and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the
 No 612/77 and ( EEC ) No 1 1 36/79 as regards the release of         eighth Council Directive 79/ 1072/EEC of 6 December 1979
 the security for certain special import arrangements in the          on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
 beef and veal sector ( OJ No L 109 , 1987, p. 12 ) — the Court       relating to turnover taxes — arrangements for the refund of
 ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris                       value added tax to taxable persons not established in the
 ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and              territory of the country ( OJ No L 331 , 1979 , p. 11 ), the
 G. F. Mancini, Judges ; P. Leger, Advocate-General; H. von           Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ,
 Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a           President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ) and
 judgment on 17 September 1996 , in which it rules :                  P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ;
                                                                      H. A. Riihl , Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
 1 . Article 2 (d) of Council Directive 79/623/EEC of                 given a judgment on 26 September 1996 in which it
                                                                      rules :
      25 June 1979 on the harmonization of provisions laid
      down by law, regulation or administrative action
      relating to customs debt has direct effect and confers on       Article 3 (b) of the eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC,
      individuals rights which they may assert against a              of 6 December 1979, on the harmonization of the laws of
      Member State which has failed to transpose the directive        the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
      into national law, and which the national courts must           arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable
      safeguard.                                                      persons not established in the territory of the country, is to
                                                                      be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a lawyer
2 . Article 2 (d) of Directive 79/623/EEC is also applicable          benefits, pursuant to Article 28 (3) (b) of the sixth Council
      where Commission Regulation (EEC) No 612/77 of                  Directive 77/388/EEC, of 17 May 1977, on the
      24 March 1 977 laying down rules for the application of         harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
      the special import arrangements in respect of certain           turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:
      young male bovine animals for fattening, as amended by          uniform basis of assessment, and Annex F thereto, from an
      Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1384/77 of 27 June               exemption in the Member State in which he is established
      1977, is infringed.                                             does not entitle him to request the competent authorities of
                                                                      that Member State to issue the certificate mentioned therein
                                                                      and he is not, accordingly, entitled to a refund of the VAT
C ) OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
     OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                      charged on services supplied to him in a Member State in
                                                                      which he is not established and in which services supplied by
                                                                      lawyers are not exempted.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 178 , 30 . 6 . 1993 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber )
                     of 26 September 1996                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-302/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    ( Fourth Chamber )
the Gerechtshof, The Hague ): Etienne Debouche v.                                          of 26 September 1996
         Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (')
                                                                     in Case C-230/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Value added tax — Interpretation ofArticle 1 7 (2) and (3)          the      Bundesfinanzhof):      Renate      Enkler     v.     Finanzamt
(a) ofDirective 77/388/EEC and ofArticle 3 (b) and the first                                      Homburg ( 1 )
paragraph ofArticle 5 ofDirective 79/1 072/EEC — Refund
of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the          (Sixth VAT Directive — Definition of economic activity —
                                                                                                Taxable amount)
                    territory of the country)
                                                                                                  96/C 354/ 11 )
                          ( 96/C 354/ 10 )
                                                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                   published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-230/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
In Case C-302/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177          of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof [Federal Finance
of the EEC Treaty from the Gerechtshof [ Regional Court of           Court, Germany] for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Appeal], The Hague ( Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling          pending before that court between Renate Enkler and
in the proceedings pending before that court between                 Finanzamt ( Tax Office ) Homburg on the interpretation of
Etienne Debouche and Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en                 Articles 4(1 ) and ( 2 ), 6 ( 2 ) ( a ) and 11 A ( 1 ) ( c ) of the sixth
Accijnzen on the interpretation of Articles 17 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) ( a ) Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the
of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977             harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States                turnover taxes — common system of value added tax: