Caixa d'Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona v Generalidad de Cataluña.
Date: 2014-03-20
28. Next, concerning the allegedly discriminatory tax treatment of supplies of immovable property potentially subject to VAT, it must be recalled that, as follows from Article 33(1) of the Sixth Directive, a Member State is not precluded from maintaining or introducing taxes, duties and charges which cannot be characterised as turnover taxes. Since EU law permits concurrent systems of taxation, it thus allows such taxes to be levied even where the charging of such taxes on a transaction which is already subject to value added tax may result in the double taxation of that transaction (see, to that effect, Case 73/85 Kerrutt  [1986] ECR 2219, paragraph 22, and Joined Cases C‑283/06 and C‑312/06 KÖGÁZ and Others  [2007] ECR I‑8463, paragraph 33).
29. With regard to the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, it should be recalled that the Court has already ruled on the compatibility of that legislation with Article 33(1) of the Sixth Directive in the case which gave rise to the order of 27 November 2008 in Case C‑151/08 Renta . The Court, having recalled the essential characteristics of VAT set out in its case-law (see, inter alia, Case C‑475/03 Banca popolare di Cremona  [2006] ECR I‑9373, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited), found in that order that a tax with characteristics such as those of the tax on capital transfers differs from VAT in such a way that it cannot be characterised as a turnover tax within the meaning of Article 33(1) of the Sixth Directive.
40. It should be noted that, while, in view of the division of responsibilities in the preliminary-ruling procedure, it is for the referring court alone to determine the subject-matter of the questions which it proposes to refer to the Court, it is for the Court to examine the conditions under which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑92/09 and C‑93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke and Eifert  [2010] ECR I‑11063, paragraph 39, and Case C‑84/11 Susisalo and Others  [2012] ECR, paragraph 16).
41. In this regard, it must be recalled that the Court does not have jurisdiction to reply to a question referred for a preliminary ruling where it is obvious that the provision of EU law referred to the Court for interpretation is incapable of applying (see, to that effect, Case C‑567/07 Woningstichting Sint Servatius  [2009] ECR I‑9021, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).
42. As regards the rules of EU law the interpretation of which is sought by the third question, it must be stated that the provisions of the FEU Treaty in relation to the freedom of establishment and free movement of capital do not apply to a situation all aspects of which are confined within a single Member State (see, to that effect, with regard to the freedom of establishment, Case C‑389/05 Commission  v France  [2008] ECR I‑5397, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited, and, with regard to the free movement of capital, Joined Cases C‑515/99, C‑519/99 to C‑524/99 and C‑526/99 to C‑540/99 Reisch and Others  [2002] ECR I‑2157, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).
44. That may be the case, in particular, if national law requires the referring court to grant the same rights to a national of the Member State of that court as those which a national of another Member State in the same situation would derive from EU law (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C‑448/98 Guimont  [2000] ECR I‑10663, paragraph 23; Case C‑451/03 Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti  [2006] ECR I‑2941, paragraph 29; Joined Cases C‑94/04 and C‑202/04 Cipolla and Others  [2006] ECR I‑11421, paragraph 30) or where the request for a preliminary ruling concerns provisions of EU law to which the national law of a Member State refers in order to determine the rules applicable to a situation which is purely internal to that Member State (see, to that effect, inter alia, Joined Cases C‑297/88 and C‑197/89 Dzodzi  [1990] ECR I‑3763, paragraph 36; Case C‑3/04 Poseidon Chartering  [2006] ECR I‑2505, paragraph 15; C‑313/12 Romeo  [2013] ECR, paragraph 21).