Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën.
Date: 2008-07-10
20. It must be borne in mind that the Court may of its own motion, on a proposal from the Advocate General, or at the request of the parties, reopen the oral procedure in accordance with Article 61 of its Rules of Procedure, if it considers that it lacks sufficient information, or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties (see order in Case C‑17/98 Emesa Sugar  [2000] ECR I‑665, paragraph 18; Case C‑210/03 Swedish Match  [2004] ECR I‑11893, paragraph 25; Case C‑466/03 Albert Reiss Beteiligungsgesellschaft  [2007] ECR I-5357, paragraph 29; and Case C‑491/06 Danske Svineproducenter  [2008] ECR I‑000, paragraph 21).
24. In reply to the first question, the provisions of the First and Sixth Directives contain no explicit rule concerning rounding of amounts of VAT. In particular, the Sixth Directive is silent on that matter.
27. That finding is in no way affected by the requirement that the objectives and context of each of the provisions referred to in the two preceding paragraphs must be taken into account in their interpretation (see, in particular, Case C‑491/01 British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco  [2002] ECR I‑11453, paragraph 203 and case‑law there cited; Case C‑12/00 Commission  v Spain  [2003] ECR I‑459, paragraph 55; and Case C‑437/06 Securenta  [2008] ECR I‑000, paragraph 35).
28. It is clear from the Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes – Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 16) that the objective of the turnover tax is to achieve equal conditions of taxation for the same supply, no matter in which Member State it is carried out (Case C‑475/03 Banca Popolare di Cremona  [2006] ECR I‑9373, paragraphs 20 and 23). In that context, the purpose of Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive is to guarantee uniformity, in the Member States, of the amount which is to be taxable.
29. The same applies to Article 22(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive, in relation to which it is evident from the fourth recital in the preamble to Directive 2001/115 that the purpose of the particulars which must appear on invoices is to ensure that the internal market functions properly. Lastly, the objective of Article 22(4) and (5) of the Sixth Directive is to ensure that the tax authority has available to it all the information required in order to calculate and collect the exact amount of tax payable.
30. It follows that it cannot be inferred from either the wording of those provisions or their objectives that a specific method of rounding has been laid down by Community law.
31. Consequently, in the absence of any Community legislation, it is for the legal systems of the Member States to determine, within the limits of Community law, the method and rules for rounding of an amount declared by way of VAT.
32. When Member States establish or accept a particular method of rounding, they are obliged to observe the principles governing the common system of VAT, such as those of fiscal neutrality and proportionality. It does not, however, follow from observance of those recognised principles of the Community legal system that the question as to which specific method of rounding should be used is itself within the scope of Community law.
33. Having regard to all of the foregoing, the answer to be given to the first question is that, in the absence of specific Community legislation, it is for Member States to decide on the rules and methods of rounding amounts of VAT, those States being bound, when making that decision, to observe the principles underpinning the common system of VAT, in particular those of fiscal neutrality and proportionality.
The second question
36. One of the consequences of the principle of fiscal neutrality, which is the reflection in the field of VAT of the principle of equal treatment, is that taxable persons must not be treated differently, with regard to the method of rounding applied when VAT is calculated, in respect of similar services which are in competition with each other (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑443/04 and C‑444/04 Solleveld and van den Hout-van Eijnsbergen  [2006] ECR I‑3617, paragraph 35 and case‑law there cited). By virtue of the same principle, the amount of VAT to be collected by the tax authority must correspond exactly to the amount of VAT declared on the invoice and paid by the final consumer to the taxable person (see, to that effect, Case C‑317/94 Elida Gibbs  [1996] ECR I‑5339, paragraph 24).
37. Accordingly, that principle does not entail any requirement that a particular method of rounding be applied, in so far as the method chosen by the Member State concerned ensures that the amount of VAT to be collected by the tax authority corresponds exactly to the amount of VAT declared on the invoice and paid by the final consumer to the taxable person.
38. As regards the principle of proportionality, it is clear from the first paragraph of Article 2 of the First Directive that VAT is a general tax on consumption exactly proportional to the price of goods and services (see, in particular, Banca Popolare di Cremona , paragraph 21, and Joined Cases C‑283/06 and C‑312/06 KÖGÁZ and Others  [2007] ECR I‑8463, paragraph 29).
39. While observance of that principle requires, when rounding is necessary, it to be carried out in such a way that the rounded amount corresponds as closely as possible with the amount of VAT arising from application of the rates in force, the fact remains that such an operation, of its nature, is intended to facilitate calculation and must, therefore, reconcile the requirement of, so far as possible, exact proportion with the practical necessity that the common system of VAT based on the principle of a return from the taxable person should operate effectively.
40. In any event, it is unnecessary for the Court to rule on whether the rounding down per item method is capable of satisfying the requirements of the principle of proportionality within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the First Directive, since it is clear from, inter alia, the illustrative calculations provided in the observations submitted to the Court and outlined by the Advocate General in point 47 of her Opinion, that there are methods of calculation which can satisfy those requirements.
41. Consequently, because of the technical nature of rounding, it is also the case that the principle of proportionality does not contain requirements from which it can be inferred that only one method of rounding, namely that involving rounding down per item the amount of VAT, is able to satisfy the principle of proportionality.
42. It follows from the foregoing that Community law, in particular the provisions of the First and Sixth Directives and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, contains no specific obligation for Member States to permit taxable persons to round down per item the amount of VAT.