Air France-KLM and Hop!-Brit Air SAS v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics.
Date: 2015-12-23
22. According to settled case-law, a supply of services is effected ‘for consideration’, within the meaning of that provision, only if there is a legal relationship between the provider of the service and the recipient pursuant to which there is reciprocal performance, the remuneration received by the provider of the service constituting the actual consideration for the service supplied to the recipient (judgment in Tolsma , C‑16/93, EU:C:1994:80, paragraph 14).
23. That is the case if there is a direct link between the service supplied and the consideration received, the sums paid constituting the actual consideration for an identifiable service supplied in the context of such a legal relationship (judgment in Société thermale d’Eugénie-les-Bains , C‑277/05, EU:C:2007:440, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
26. In that regard, the Court has stated that the services provided in performance of obligations arising from a contract to transport passengers by air are the checking-in and the boarding of passengers, the on-board reception of those passengers at the place of take-off agreed in the transport contract, the departure of the aircraft at the scheduled time, the transport of the passengers and their luggage from the place of departure to the place of arrival, the care of passengers during the flight, and, finally, their disembarkation in conditions of safety at the place of landing and at the time scheduled in that contract (see judgment in Rehder , C‑204/08, EU:C:2009:439, paragraph 40).
28. Therefore, the consideration for the price paid when the ticket was purchased consists of the passenger’s right to benefit from the performance of obligations arising from the transport contract, regardless of whether the passenger exercises that right, since the airline company fulfils the service by enabling the passenger to benefit from those services.
31. The term ‘supply of services’, within the meaning of the Sixth Directive and the amended Sixth Directive, must, in the light of its objective nature, be interpreted without regard to the purpose or results of the transactions concerned and without its being necessary for the tax authorities to carry out inquiries to determine the intention of the taxable person (see judgment in Newey , C‑653/11, EU:C:2013:409, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).
38. However, in the first place, the second subparagraph of Article 10(2) of the Sixth Directive and the amended Sixth Directive provides for an exception to that rule where payments are made on account before the services are supplied. In that case, the tax becomes chargeable on receipt of the payment and on the amount received (see, to that effect, judgment in Orfey Balgaria , C‑549/11, EU:C:2012:832, paragraph 27, and order in Sani treyd , C‑153/12, EU:C:2013:201, paragraph 24).
39. Moreover, the Court has held that, in order for VAT to be chargeable before the supply is made, it is necessary and sufficient that all the relevant information concerning the chargeable event is already known and therefore, in particular, that, at the time the payment on account is made, the goods or services have been clearly identified (see judgment in Orfey Balgaria , C‑549/11, EU:C:2012:832, paragraphs 28 and 39, and order in Sani treyd , C‑153/12, EU:C:2013:201, paragraphs 25 and 33).
41. The full and not merely partial payment of the price is not capable of calling such an interpretation into question (see, to that effect, judgments in Orfey Balgaria , C‑549/11, EU:C:2012:832, paragraph 37, and Efir , C‑19/12, EU:C:2013:148, paragraph 39, and order in Sani treyd , C‑153/12, EU:C:2013:201, paragraph 32).