Yorkshire Co-operatives Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise.
Date: 2003-01-16
13.  It must first be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, in the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts provided for by Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted by the national court concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (see,   inter alia  , Case C-415/93   Bosman   [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 59, and Case C-340/99   TNT Traco   [2001] ECR I-4109, paragraph 30).
14.  Nevertheless, the Court has also stated that, in exceptional circumstances, it can examine the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction (see, to that effect, Case 244/80   Foglia    v   Novello   [1981] ECR 3045, paragraph 21). The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see,   inter alia  ,   Bosman  , paragraph 61; and   TNT Traco  , paragraph 31).
17.  In order to reply to the question reformulated in that way, it should be noted that, in paragraph 45 of the judgment in Case C-427/98   Commission   v   Germany   [2002] ECR I-8315, which deals   inter alia   with the determination of the taxable amount in the hands of manufacturers who issue reduction coupons such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the Court held, essentially, that such a manufacturer may be regarded as a third party as regards the transaction between the retailer who receives reimbursement of the value of the coupon and the final consumer who used such a coupon.
18.  In paragraph 46 of the judgment in   Commission   v   Germany  , the Court pointed out that, as regards the supply made by the retailer receiving the reimbursement, the fact that a portion of the consideration received for that supply was not actually paid by the final consumer himself but was made available on behalf of the final consumer by a third party not connected with that transaction is immaterial for the purposes of determining the taxable amount in the hands of that retailer.
19.  The Court added, in paragraph 57 of   Commission   v   Germany  , that assessment of reduction coupons for the purpose of calculating VAT is determined by their legal and financial characteristics, and that the taxable amount in the hands of the trader who accepts them may not be less than the sum of money which he actually receives for the supply by him.
20.  The Court concluded, in paragraph 58 of   Commission   v   Germany  , that, where a manufacturer organises a promotional operation by means of reduction coupons, the nominal amount of which it reimburses to the retailers who have accepted them, the subjective consideration within the meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive received by the retailer comprises the whole of the price of the goods, which is paid in part by the final consumer and in part by the manufacturer. The coupons substantiate the retailer's right to receive from the manufacturer a reimbursement in the amount of the reduction granted to the final consumer. It follows that the sum represented by the nominal value of those coupons constitutes for the retailer an asset item realised on their reimbursement and that they must be treated, to the extent of that value, as a means of payment.
21.  In the light of those considerations, the Court held, in paragraph 59 of   Commission   v   Germany  , that the taxable amount in the hands of the retailer for the sale to the final consumer was the full retail price, namely the price paid by the final consumer plus the amount reimbursed to the retailer by the manufacturer.
22.  Since the reduction coupons at issue in   Commission   v   Germany  , issued in the context of promotional operations by manufacturers, were similar to those accepted by Yorkshire during the period at issue in the dispute before the referring tribunal, the conclusion must be that the interpretation reached by the Court in paragraph 59 of its judgment in   Commission   v   Germany   is transposable to a case such as that in point in the main proceedings.