mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Dutch

IO heeft op 8 juli 2014 in het kader van zijn functie als lid van die raad van commissarissen een btw-aangifte gedaan ten bedrage van 782 EUR voor de periode van 1 april tot en met 30 juni 2014. Dit bedrag heeft hij ook betaald. Bij brief van 9 juli 2014 heeft hij evenwel een bezwaar ingediend tegen deze belasting, dat bij een besluit van de belastingdienst is afgewezen. Het door IO tegen dat besluit ingestelde beroep is bij vonnis van de rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Nederland) ongegrond verklaard.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Nederland))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "de belastingdienst"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Nederland))"->"IO"[label="ongegrond verklaard"];
  "IO"->"Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Nederland))"[label="Het door IO tegen dat besluit ingestelde beroep"];
  "IO"->"een btw-aangifte gedaan 08/07/2014";
  "een btw-aangifte gedaan 08/07/2014"->"de belastingdienst";
  "een btw-aangifte gedaan 08/07/2014"->"782 EUR voor de periode van 1 april tot en met 30 juni 2014 30/06/2014"[dir=none];
  "IO"->"de belastingdienst"[label="hij evenwel een bezwaar ingediend tegen deze belasting"];
  "de belastingdienst"->"IO"[label="afgewezen bij een besluit"];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Polish

W dniu 8 lipca 2014 r. IO sporządził w ramach pełnienia swej funkcji członka rady nadzorczej deklarację VAT w wysokości 782 EUR za okres od 1 kwietnia do 30 czerwca 2014 r., którą to kwotę zapłacił. Pismem z dnia 9 lipca 2014 r. złożył jednak zażalenie przeciwko temu podatkowi, które zostało oddalone decyzją organu podatkowego. Skarga wniesiona przez IO na tę decyzję została oddalona jako bezzasadna wyrokiem rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (sądu Zeeland-West-Brabant, Niderlandy).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (sądu Zeeland-West-Brabant, Niderlandy)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "organu podatkowego"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (sądu Zeeland-West-Brabant, Niderlandy)"->"IO"[label="Oddalona jako bezzasadna wyrokiem"];
  "IO"->"Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (sądu Zeeland-West-Brabant, Niderlandy)"[label="Skarga wniesiona przez IO na tę decyzję"];
  "IO"->"deklarację VAT 08/07/2014";
  "deklarację VAT 08/07/2014"->"organu podatkowego";
  "deklarację VAT 08/07/2014"->"782 EUR za okres od 1 kwietnia do 30 czerwca 2014 r. 30/06/2014"[dir=none];
  "IO"->"organu podatkowego"[label="Złożył jednak zażalenie przeciwko temu podatkowi"];
  "organu podatkowego"->"IO"[label="oddalone decyzją"];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Portuguese

Em 8 de julho de 2014, IO apresentou, no âmbito do exercício da sua função de membro desse Conselho Fiscal, uma declaração de IVA no montante de 782 euros, relativamente ao período de 1 de abril a 30 de junho de 2014, que pagou. Por requerimento de 9 de julho de 2014, apresentou, no entanto, reclamação contra este imposto, que foi indeferida por decisão da Autoridade Tributária. O recurso interposto por IO desta decisão foi julgado improcedente por decisão do rechtbank Zeeland‑West‑Brabant (Tribunal de Primeira instância de Zeeland‑West‑Brabant, Países Baixos).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Tribunal de Primeira instância de Zeeland‑West‑Brabant, Países Baixos)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Autoridade Tributária"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Tribunal de Primeira instância de Zeeland‑West‑Brabant, Países Baixos)"->"IO"[label="julgado improcedente por decisão"];
  "IO"->"Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Tribunal de Primeira instância de Zeeland‑West‑Brabant, Países Baixos)"[label="O recurso interposto por IO"];
  "IO"->"uma declaração de IVA 08/07/2014";
  "uma declaração de IVA 08/07/2014"->"Autoridade Tributária";
  "uma declaração de IVA 08/07/2014"->"782 euros de 1 de abril a 30 de junho de 2014 30/06/2014"[dir=none];
  "IO"->"Autoridade Tributária"[label="apresentou, no entanto, reclamação contra este imposto"];
  "Autoridade Tributária"->"IO"[label="indeferida por decisão"];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Romanian

La 8 iulie 2014, IO a efectuat, în cadrul exercitării funcției sale de membru al consiliului de supraveghere, o declarație de TVA în cuantum de 782 de euro pentru perioada cuprinsă între 1 aprilie și 30 iunie 2014, pe care l‑a achitat. Prin scrisoarea din 9 iulie 2014, el a formulat însă o contestație împotriva acestei taxe, care a fost respinsă printr‑o decizie a administrației fiscale. Acțiunea introdusă de IO împotriva acestei decizii a fost respinsă ca nefondată printr‑o hotărâre a rechtbank Zeeland‑West‑Brabant (Tribunalul din Zeeland‑West‑Brabant, Țările de Jos).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Tribunalul din Zeeland‑West‑Brabant, Țările de Jos)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "administrației fiscale"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Tribunalul din Zeeland‑West‑Brabant, Țările de Jos)"->"IO"[label="respinsă ca nefondată printr‑o hotărâre"];
  "IO"->"Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Tribunalul din Zeeland‑West‑Brabant, Țările de Jos)"[label="Acțiunea introdusă de IO"];
  "IO"->"o declarație de TVA 08/07/2014";
  "o declarație de TVA 08/07/2014"->"administrației fiscale";
  "o declarație de TVA 08/07/2014"->"782 de euro pentru perioada cuprinsă între 1 aprilie și 30 iunie 2014 30/06/2014"[dir=none];
  "IO"->"administrației fiscale"[label="a formulat însă o contestație împotriva acestei taxe"];
  "administrației fiscale"->"IO"[label="respinsă printr‑o decizie"];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Slovak

Dňa 8. júla 2014 IO v rámci výkonu svojej funkcie člena dozornej rady podal priznanie k DPH na sumu 782 eur za obdobie od 1. apríla do 30. júna 2014, ktorú zaplatil. Listom z 9. júla 2014 však podal proti tejto dani námietku, ktorú daňová správa zamietla. Žaloba, ktorú IO proti tomuto rozhodnutiu podal, bola zamietnutá ako nedôvodná rozsudkom Rechtbank Zeeland‑West‑Brabant (súd provincie Zeeland‑West‑Brabant, Holandsko).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Rechtbank Zeeland‑West‑Brabant (súd provincie Zeeland‑West‑Brabant, Holandsko))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "daňová správa"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Rechtbank Zeeland‑West‑Brabant (súd provincie Zeeland‑West‑Brabant, Holandsko))"->"IO"[label="zamietnutá ako nedôvodná rozsudkom"];
  "IO"->"Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Rechtbank Zeeland‑West‑Brabant (súd provincie Zeeland‑West‑Brabant, Holandsko))"[label="podal priznanie"];
  "IO"->"priznanie k DPH 08/07/2014";
  "priznanie k DPH 08/07/2014"->"daňová správa";
  "priznanie k DPH 08/07/2014"->"sumu 782 eur za obdobie od 1. apríla do 30. júna 2014 30/06/2014"[dir=none];
  "IO"->"daňová správa"[label="však podal proti tejto dani námietku"];
  "daňová správa"->"IO"[label="zamietla"];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Slovenian

IO je 8. julija 2014 v okviru izvajanja svoje funkcije člana nadzornega sveta predložil obračun DDV za obdobje od 1. aprila do 30. junija 2014 v višini 782 EUR, ki ga je plačal. Vendar je z dopisom z dne 9. julija 2014 vložil ugovor zoper ta davek, ki je bil zavrnjen z odločbo davčne uprave. Tožba IO zoper to odločbo je bila s sodbo rechtbank Zeeland‑West‑Brabant (sodišče prve stopnje za Zelandijo in zahodni Brabant, Nizozemska) zavrnjena kot neutemeljena.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (rechtbank Zeeland‑West‑Brabant (sodišče prve stopnje za Zelandijo in zahodni Brabant, Nizozemska))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "davčne uprave"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (rechtbank Zeeland‑West‑Brabant (sodišče prve stopnje za Zelandijo in zahodni Brabant, Nizozemska))"->"IO"[label="zavrnjena s sodbo"];
  "IO"->"Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (rechtbank Zeeland‑West‑Brabant (sodišče prve stopnje za Zelandijo in zahodni Brabant, Nizozemska))"[label="Tožba IO zoper to odločbo"];
  "IO"->"obračun DDV 08/07/2014";
  "obračun DDV 08/07/2014"->"davčne uprave";
  "obračun DDV 08/07/2014"->"782 EUR, za obdobje od 1. aprila do 30. junija 2014 30/06/2014"[dir=none];
  "IO"->"davčne uprave"[label="vložil ugovor zoper ta davek"];
  "davčne uprave"->"IO"[label="zavrnjen z odločbo"];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Finnish

IO teki hallintoneuvoston jäsenen tehtäväänsä hoitaessaan 8.7.2014 arvonlisäveroilmoituksen 1.4.–30.6.2014 väliseltä ajanjaksolta; veron ilmoitettu määrä oli 782 euroa, ja IO maksoi sen. Hän teki kuitenkin 9.7.2014 päivätyllä kirjeellä kyseistä veroa koskevan oikaisuvaatimuksen, joka hylättiin verohallinnon päätöksellä. IO:n kyseisestä päätöksestä nostama kanne hylättiin perusteettomana rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabantin (Zeeland-West-Brabantin alioikeus, Alankomaat) tuomiolla.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Zeeland-West-Brabantin alioikeus, Alankomaat)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "verohallinto"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Zeeland-West-Brabantin alioikeus, Alankomaat)"->"IO"[label="hylättiin perusteettomana rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabantin (Zeeland-West-Brabantin alioikeus, Alankomaat) tuomiolla."];
  "IO"->"Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Zeeland-West-Brabantin alioikeus, Alankomaat)"[label="nostama kanne"];
  "IO"->"IO teki hallintoneuvoston jäsenen tehtäväänsä hoitaessaan 8.7.2014 arvonlisäveroilmoituksen 1.4.–30.6.2014 väliseltä ajanjaksolta; veron ilmoitettu määrä oli 782 euroa, ja IO maksoi sen. 08/07/2014";
  "IO teki hallintoneuvoston jäsenen tehtäväänsä hoitaessaan 8.7.2014 arvonlisäveroilmoituksen 1.4.–30.6.2014 väliseltä ajanjaksolta; veron ilmoitettu määrä oli 782 euroa, ja IO maksoi sen. 08/07/2014"->"verohallinto";
  "IO teki hallintoneuvoston jäsenen tehtäväänsä hoitaessaan 8.7.2014 arvonlisäveroilmoituksen 1.4.–30.6.2014 väliseltä ajanjaksolta; veron ilmoitettu määrä oli 782 euroa, ja IO maksoi sen. 08/07/2014"->"782 euroa 1.4.–30.6.2014 väliseltä ajanjaksolta 30/06/2014"[dir=none];
  "IO"->"verohallinto"[label="Nostama kanne kyseistä veroa koskevan"];
  "verohallinto"->"IO"[label="hylättiin verohallinnon päätöksellä"];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Swedish

Den 8 juli 2014 lämnade IO in en mervärdesskattedeklaration avseende sin verksamhet som ledamot i kontrollorganet och redovisade mervärdesskatt med 782 euro för perioden mellan den 1 april och den 30 juni 2014. Han betalade in detta belopp. Genom en skrivelse av den 9 juli 2014 begärde han emellertid omprövning av denna skatt, vilken avslogs genom ett beslut av skattemyndigheten. IO:s överklagande av detta beslut avslogs genom en dom meddelad av Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (domstolen i Zeeland-West-Brabant, Nederländerna).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (domstolen i Zeeland-West-Brabant, Nederländerna)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "skattemyndigheten"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (domstolen i Zeeland-West-Brabant, Nederländerna)"->"IO"[label="avslogs genom en dom"];
  "IO"->"Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (domstolen i Zeeland-West-Brabant, Nederländerna)"[label="överklagande av detta beslut"];
  "IO"->"en mervärdesskattedeklaration avseende sin verksamhet 08/07/2014";
  "en mervärdesskattedeklaration avseende sin verksamhet 08/07/2014"->"skattemyndigheten";
  "en mervärdesskattedeklaration avseende sin verksamhet 08/07/2014"->"30/06/2014 med 782 euro för perioden mellan den 1 april och den 30 juni 2014. 30/06/2014"[dir=none];
  "IO"->"skattemyndigheten"[label="IO:s överklagande av detta beslut"];
  "skattemyndigheten"->"IO"[label="Avslogs genom ett beslut"];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: English

IO appealed against that judgment before the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Court of Appeal, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands). That court states that the parties to the proceedings brought before it are in dispute as to whether IO must, on account of his activity as a member of the Supervisory Board concerned, be classified as an ‘entrepreneur’ within the meaning of Article 7 of Law of 1968 on Turnover Tax and a ‘taxable person’ in accordance with Articles 9 and 10 of the VAT Directive. In that regard, it is not in dispute that the person concerned, as a member of that Supervisory Board, participates continually in the economy and, consequently, carries out an economic activity. Those parties disagree, however, as to whether that activity is carried out independently.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "The Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Court of Appeal, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "IO"->"The Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Court of Appeal, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands)"[label="Appealed against the judgement"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Bulgarian

IO подава въззивна жалба срещу това съдебно решение пред Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (Апелативен съд Хертогенбос, Нидерландия). Тази юрисдикция пояснява, че страните по делото пред нея спорят дали поради дейността си като член на въпросния надзорен съвет IO трябва да се окачестви като „данъчнозадължено лице“ по смисъла на член 7 от Закона от 1968 г. за данъка върху оборота и по смисъла на членове 9 и 10 от Директивата за ДДС. В това отношение е безспорно, че като член на надзорния съвет заинтересованият участва трайно в стопанския обмен и съответно извършва икономическа дейност. Страните обаче спорят дали тази дейност се извършва независимо.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Апелативен съд Хертогенбос, Нидерландия)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Апелативен съд Хертогенбос, Нидерландия)"[label="подава въззивна жалба срещу това съдебно решение"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Spanish

IO recurrió esa sentencia ante el gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (Tribunal de Apelación de Bolduque, Países Bajos). Dicho órgano jurisdiccional precisa que las partes en el litigio del que conoce discuten acerca de si, debido a su actividad como miembro del citado Consejo de Vigilancia, IO debe ser calificado de «empresario», en el sentido del artículo 7 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre el Volumen de Negocios de 1968, y de «sujeto pasivo», en el sentido de los artículos 9 y 10 de la Directiva del IVA. A este respecto, según el órgano jurisdiccional remitente, es incontrovertido que el interesado, como miembro del Consejo de Vigilancia, participa de forma duradera en la vida económica y ejerce, por consiguiente, una actividad económica. No obstante, las partes discrepan acerca de si dicha actividad se realiza con carácter independiente.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Tribunal de Apelación de Bolduque, Países Bajos)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Tribunal de Apelación de Bolduque, Países Bajos)"[label="IO recurrió esa sentencia"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Czech

Žalobce IO se proti tomuto rozsudku odvolal ke Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (odvolací soud v Hertogenboschi, Nizozemsko). Tento soud upřesňuje, že účastníci sporu, který mu byl předložen, se rozcházejí v otázce, zda IO musí být z důvodu činnosti člena dotyčné dozorčí rady považován za „podnikatele“ ve smyslu článku 7 zákona z roku 1968 o dani z obratu a za „osobu povinnou k dani“ ve smyslu článků 9 a 10 směrnice o DPH. V tomto ohledu není zpochybňováno, že dotyčná osoba, jakožto člen této dozorčí rady, se trvale účastní ekonomického života, a vykonává proto ekonomickou činnost. Účastníci řízení se však rozcházejí v otázce, zda je tato činnost vykonávána „samostatně“.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (odvolací soud v Hertogenboschi, Nizozemsko)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (odvolací soud v Hertogenboschi, Nizozemsko)"[label="se proti tomuto rozsudku odvolal"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Danish

IO har iværksat appel af denne dom til Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (appeldomstolen i ’s-Hertogenbosch, Nederlandene). Denne ret har præciseret, at parterne i den for den verserende tvist er uenige om, hvorvidt IO som følge af sit arbejde som medlem af den pågældende bestyrelse skal kvalificeres som »erhvervsdrivende« som omhandlet i artikel 7 i lov om omsætningsafgift af 1968 og som »afgiftspligtig person« som omhandlet i momsdirektivets artikel 9 og 10. Det er i denne henseende ubestridt, at IO i sin egenskab af medlem af denne bestyrelse vedvarende deltager i erhvervslivet og følgelig udøver økonomisk virksomhed. De nævnte parter er dog uenige om, hvorvidt denne virksomhed udøves selvstændigt.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (appeldomstolen i ’s-Hertogenbosch, Nederlandene)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (appeldomstolen i ’s-Hertogenbosch, Nederlandene)"[label="iværksat appel af denne dom"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: German

IO legte gegen dieses Urteil Berufung beim Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (Gerichtshof Herzogenbusch, Niederlande) ein. Dieses Gericht führt aus, dass die Parteien des bei ihm anhängigen Rechtsstreits darüber uneinig seien, ob IO aufgrund seiner Tätigkeit als Aufsichtsratsmitglied als „Unternehmer“ im Sinne von Art. 7 des Umsatzsteuergesetzes von 1968 und „Steuerpflichtiger“ im Sinne von Art. 9 und 10 der Mehrwertsteuerrichtlinie einzustufen sei. Zwar sei unstreitig, dass IO als Mitglied dieses Aufsichtsrats dauerhaft am Wirtschaftsverkehr teilnehme und somit eine wirtschaftliche Tätigkeit ausübe. Uneinig seien die Parteien jedoch hinsichtlich der Frage, ob diese Tätigkeit selbständig ausgeübt werde.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (Gerichtshof Herzogenbusch, Niederlande))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (Gerichtshof Herzogenbusch, Niederlande))"[label="legte gegen dieses Urteil Berufung"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Estonian

IO esitas selle kohtuotsuse peale apellatsioonkaebuse Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenboschile (’s‑Hertogenboschi apellatsioonikohus, Madalmaad). See kohus täpsustab, et tema menetluses oleva kohtuasja pooltel on vaidlus küsimuses, kas IO‑d tuleb seetõttu, et ta tegutseb järelevalvenõukogu liikmena, pidada „ettevõtjaks“ 1968. aasta käibemaksuseaduse artikli 7 tähenduses ja „maksukohustuslaseks“ käibemaksudirektiivi artiklite 9 ja 10 tähenduses. Sellega seoses ei ole vaidlustatud, et asjaomane isik osaleb järelevalvenõukogu liikmena kestvalt majanduselus ja järelikult tegeleb majandustegevusega. Pooled vaidlevad siiski selle üle, kas seda tegevust teostatakse iseseisvalt.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (s‑Hertogenboschi apellatsioonikohus, Madalmaad)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (s‑Hertogenboschi apellatsioonikohus, Madalmaad)"[label="IO esitas selle kohtuotsuse peale apellatsioonkaebuse"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Greek

Ο IO άσκησε έφεση κατά της ως άνω αποφάσεως ενώπιον του Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (εφετείου ’s-Hertogenbosch, Κάτω Χώρες). Το εν λόγω δικαστήριο διευκρινίζει ότι οι διάδικοι της διαφοράς που ήχθη ενώπιόν του διαφωνούν ως προς το αν ο IO πρέπει, λόγω της δραστηριότητάς του ως μέλους του εποπτικού συμβουλίου, να χαρακτηρισθεί ως «επιχειρηματίας», κατά την έννοια του άρθρου 7 του νόμου του 1968 περί του φόρου κύκλου εργασιών και ως «υποκείμενος στον φόρο» κατά την έννοια των άρθρων 9 και 10 της οδηγίας περί ΦΠΑ. Συναφώς, κατά το εν λόγω δικαστήριο, δεν αμφισβητείται ότι ο ενδιαφερόμενος, ως μέλος του εν λόγω εποπτικού συμβουλίου, μετέχει σε μόνιμη βάση στην οικονομική ζωή και ασκεί, κατά συνέπεια, οικονομική δραστηριότητα. Ωστόσο, οι εν λόγω διάδικοι διαφωνούν ως προς το αν η δραστηριότητα αυτή ασκείται κατά τρόπο ανεξάρτητο.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (εφετείου ’s-Hertogenbosch, Κάτω Χώρες)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (εφετείου ’s-Hertogenbosch, Κάτω Χώρες)"[label="άσκησε έφεση κατά της ως άνω αποφάσεως"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: French

IO a interjeté appel de ce jugement devant le Gerechtshof’ s‑Hertogenbosch (cour d’appel de Bois-le-Duc, Pays-Bas). Cette juridiction précise que les parties au litige porté devant elle s’opposent sur la question de savoir si IO doit, en raison de son activité de membre du conseil de surveillance concerné, être qualifié d’« entrepreneur », au sens de l’article 7 de la loi de 1968 relative à la taxe sur le chiffre d’affaires et d’« assujetti » au sens des articles 9 et 10 de la directive TVA. À cet égard, il ne serait pas contesté que l’intéressé, en tant que membre de ce conseil de surveillance, participe durablement à la vie économique et exerce, par conséquent, une activité économique. Lesdites parties s’opposent toutefois sur le point de savoir si cette activité est exercée de façon indépendante.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (cour d’appel de Bois-le-Duc, Pays-Bas)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (cour d’appel de Bois-le-Duc, Pays-Bas)"[label="a interjeté appel de ce jugement"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Croatian

Osoba IO podnijela je žalbu protiv te presude Gerechtshofu’ s‑Hertogenbosch (Žalbeni sud u ’s‑Hertogenboschu). Taj sud pojašnjava da je među strankama u postupku koji se pred njim vodi sporno treba li osobu IO, zbog njezine djelatnosti člana dotičnog nadzornog odbora, okvalificirati kao „poduzetnika” u smislu članka 7. Zakona o porezu na promet iz 1968. i „poreznog obveznika” u smislu članaka 9. i 10. Direktive o PDV‑u. U tom pogledu nesporno je da zainteresirana osoba kao član tog nadzornog odbora trajno sudjeluje u gospodarskom životu i posljedično obavlja gospodarsku djelatnost. Međutim, među strankama je sporno obavlja li se ta djelatnost samostalno.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Žalbeni sud u ’s‑Hertogenboschu)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Žalbeni sud u ’s‑Hertogenboschu)"[label="podnijela je žalbu protiv te presude"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Italian

IO ha impugnato tale sentenza dinanzi al Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Corte d’appello di ’s‑Hertogenbosch, Paesi Bassi). Tale giudice precisa che le parti della controversia di cui è investito dibattono sulla questione se IO, a motivo della sua attività di membro del consiglio di vigilanza considerato, debba essere qualificato come «imprenditore», ai sensi dell’articolo 7 della legge del 1968, relativa all’imposta sul fatturato, e come «soggetto passivo» ai sensi degli articoli 9 e 10 della direttiva IVA. A tal riguardo, sarebbe pacifico che l’interessato, in quanto membro di tale consiglio di vigilanza, partecipa stabilmente alla vita economica ed esercita, di conseguenza, un’attività economica. Dette parti controvertono, tuttavia, sulla questione se tale attività sia esercitata in modo indipendente.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Corte d’appello di ’s‑Hertogenbosch, Paesi Bassi)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Corte d’appello di ’s‑Hertogenbosch, Paesi Bassi)"[label="ha impugnato tale sentenza"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Latvian

IO iesniedza apelācijas sūdzību par šo spriedumu Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (Hertogenboshas apelācijas tiesa, Nīderlande). Šī tiesa precizē, ka tajā izskatāmās lietas dalībnieki strīdas par jautājumu, vai IO viņa attiecīgās uzraudzības padomes locekļa darbības dēļ bija jākvalificē par “komersantu” 1968. gada Likuma par apgrozījuma nodokli 7. panta izpratnē un par “nodokļu maksātāju” PVN direktīvas 9. un 10. panta izpratnē. Šajā ziņā nevar apstrīdēt to, ka ieinteresētā persona – kā uzraudzības padomes loceklis – ilglaicīgi piedalās saimnieciskajā dzīvē un līdz ar to veic saimniecisko darbību. Tomēr minētie lietas dalībnieki strīdas par jautājumu, vai šī darbība tiek veikta patstāvīgi.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Hertogenboshas apelācijas tiesa, Nīderlande)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Hertogenboshas apelācijas tiesa, Nīderlande)"[label="IO iesniedza apelācijas sūdzību par šo spriedumu"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Lithuanian

IO apskundė šį sprendimą Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (Hertogenboso apeliacinis teismas, Nyderlandai). Šis teismas patikslina, kad jam pateikto ginčo šalys nesutaria dėl klausimo, ar IO dėl savo, kaip atitinkamos stebėtojų tarybos nario, veiklos turi būti laikomas „verslininku“, kaip tai suprantama pagal 1968 m. Apyvartos mokesčio įstatymo 7 straipsnį, ir „apmokestinamuoju asmeniu“, kaip tai suprantama pagal PVM direktyvos 9 ir 10 straipsnius. Šiuo klausimu neginčijama, kad suinteresuotasis asmuo, kaip šios stebėtojų tarybos narys, nuolat dalyvauja ekonominiame gyvenime ir todėl vykdo ekonominę veiklą. Tačiau šios šalys nesutaria, ar ši veikla vykdoma savarankiškai.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Hertogenboso apeliacinis teismas, Nyderlandai)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Hertogenboso apeliacinis teismas, Nyderlandai)"[label="IO apskundė šį sprendimą"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Hungarian

IO ezen ítélettel szemben fellebbezést terjesztett a Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (’s‑hertogenbosch‑i fellebbviteli bíróság, Hollandia) elé. E bíróság kifejti, hogy az elé terjesztett jogvitában részt vevő felek azon kérdésben nem értenek egyet, hogy IO‑t az érintett felügyelőbizottság tagjaként végzett tevékenysége miatt a forgalmi adóról szóló 1968. évi törvény 7. cikke szerinti „vállalkozónak” és a héairányelv 9. és 10. cikke értelmében vett „adóalanynak” kell‑e minősíteni. E tekintetben nem vitatható, hogy az érintett személy e felügyelőbizottság tagjaként tartósan részt vesz a gazdasági életben, és ennek következtében gazdasági tevékenységet folytat. Az említett felek között ugyanakkor vita tárgya, hogy e tevékenységet önállóan végzik‑e.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (’s‑hertogenbosch‑i fellebbviteli bíróság, Hollandia))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (’s‑hertogenbosch‑i fellebbviteli bíróság, Hollandia))"[label="IO ezen ítélettel szemben fellebbezést terjesztett"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Maltese

IO appella minn din is-sentenza quddiem il-Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (il-Qorti tal-Appell ta’ Bois-le-Duc, il-Pajjiżi l-Baxxi). Din il-qorti tispeċifika li l-partijiet fit-tilwima mressqa quddiemha ma jaqblux fuq il-kwistjoni dwar jekk IO għandux, għall-attività tiegħu inkwantu membru tal-bord ta’ sorveljanza kkkonċernat, jiġi kklassifikat bħala “imprenditur” fis-sens tal-Artikolu 7 tal-liġi tal-1968 dwar it-taxxa fuq id-dħul u bħala “persuna taxxabbli” fis-sens tal-Artikoli 9 u 10 tad-Direttiva dwar il-VAT. F’dan ir-rigward, ma huwiex ikkontestat li l-persuna kkonċernata, inkwantu membru ta’ dan il-bord ta’ sorveljanza, tipparteċipa b’mod kontinwu fil-ħajja ekonomika u teżerċita, għaldaqstant, attività ekonomika. L-imsemmija partijiet ma jaqblux madankollu fuq il-punt dwar jekk din l-attività hijiex eżerċitata b’mod indipendenti.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (il-Qorti tal-Appell ta’ Bois-le-Duc, il-Pajjiżi l-Baxxi))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (il-Qorti tal-Appell ta’ Bois-le-Duc, il-Pajjiżi l-Baxxi))"[label="IO appella minn din is-sentenza"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Dutch

IO heeft tegen dat vonnis hoger beroep ingesteld bij het gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Nederland). Deze rechter preciseert dat tussen de partijen in het bij hem aanhangige geding in geschil is of IO op grond van zijn werkzaamheden als lid van de betrokken raad van commissarissen moet worden aangemerkt als „ondernemer” in de zin van artikel 7 van de wet op de omzetbelasting 1968 en als „belastingplichtige” in de zin van de artikelen 9 en 10 van de btw-richtlijn. In dit verband wordt niet betwist dat betrokkene als lid van die raad van commissarissen duurzaam deelneemt aan het economische verkeer en dientengevolge een economische activiteit uitoefent. Tussen voornoemde partijen is echter in geschil of die activiteit zelfstandig wordt uitgeoefend.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Nederland))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Nederland))"[label="heeft tegen dat vonnis hoger beroep ingesteld"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Polish

IO wniósł apelację od tego wyroku do Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (sądu apelacyjnego w ’s‑Hertogenbosch, Niderlandy). Sąd ten wyjaśnia, że strony toczącego się przed nim sporu spierają się co do kwestii, czy IO powinien ze względu na swoją działalność członka odnośnej rady nadzorczej zostać zakwalifikowany jako „przedsiębiorca” w rozumieniu art. 7 ustawy z 1968 r. o podatku obrotowym i jako „podatnik” w rozumieniu art. 9 i 10 dyrektywy VAT. W tym zakresie nie zaprzeczono temu, że zainteresowany jako członek rady nadzorczej uczestniczy w sposób trwały w życiu gospodarczym i prowadzi w konsekwencji działalność gospodarczą. Wspomniane strony nie zgadzają się jednak co do tego, czy owa działalność jest prowadzona samodzielnie.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (sądu apelacyjnego w ’s‑Hertogenbosch, Niderlandy)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (sądu apelacyjnego w ’s‑Hertogenbosch, Niderlandy)"[label="wniósł apelację od tego wyroku"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Portuguese

IO interpôs recurso desta decisão no Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (Tribunal de Recurso de Hertogenbosch, Países Baixos). Este órgão jurisdicional precisa que as partes no litígio que lhe foi submetido se opõem quanto a saber se, devido à sua atividade de membro do referido Conselho Fiscal, IO deve ser qualificado como «empresário», na aceção do artigo 7.o da Lei de 1968 relativa ao imposto sobre o volume de negócios e de «sujeito passivo» na aceção dos artigos 9.o e 10.o da Diretiva IVA. A este respeito, não é contestado que o interessado, na qualidade de membro desse Conselho Fiscal, participa de forma duradoura na vida económica e exerce, por conseguinte, uma atividade económica. As mesmas partes discordam, contudo, quanto a saber se esta atividade é exercida de forma independente.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Tribunal de Recurso de Hertogenbosch, Países Baixos)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Tribunal de Recurso de Hertogenbosch, Países Baixos)"[label="interpôs recurso desta decisão"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Romanian

IO a declarat apel împotriva acestei hotărâri la Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (Curtea de Apel din Hertogenbosch, Țările de Jos). Această instanță precizează că părțile în litigiul cu care a fost sesizată sunt în dezacord cu privire la aspectul dacă IO trebuie, ca urmare a activității sale de membru al consiliului de supraveghere în cauză, să fie calificat drept „întreprinzător” în sensul articolului 7 din Legea din 1968 privind impozitul pe cifra de afaceri și drept „persoană impozabilă” în sensul articolelor 9 și 10 din Directiva TVA. În această privință, nu se contestă că persoana interesată, în calitate de membru al acestui consiliu de supraveghere, participă în mod durabil la viața economică și exercită, în consecință, o activitate economică. Părțile menționate se opun însă cu privire la aspectul dacă această activitate este desfășurată în mod independent.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Curtea de Apel din Hertogenbosch, Țările de Jos)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Curtea de Apel din Hertogenbosch, Țările de Jos)"[label="a declarat apel împotriva acestei hotărâri"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Slovak

IO podal odvolanie proti tomuto rozsudku na Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (Odvolací súd ’s‑Hertogenbosch, Holandsko). Tento súd spresňuje, že účastníci sporu, ktorý mu bol predložený, sa rozchádzajú v otázke, či sa IO má z dôvodu svojej činnosti člena predmetnej dozornej rady kvalifikovať ako „podnikateľ“ v zmysle článku 7 zákona z roku 1968 o dani z obratu a „zdaniteľná osoba“ v zmysle článkov 9 a 10 smernice o DPH. V tejto súvislosti nie je sporné, že dotknutá osoba sa ako člen dozornej rady trvalo zúčastňuje na ekonomickom živote a v dôsledku toho vykonáva ekonomickú činnosť. Uvedení účastníci konania sa však rozchádzajú v bode, či sa táto činnosť vykonáva nezávisle.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Odvolací súd ’s‑Hertogenbosch, Holandsko)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Odvolací súd ’s‑Hertogenbosch, Holandsko)"[label="IO podal odvolanie proti tomuto rozsudku"];

}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019.
IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch.
Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation.
Case C-420/18. (2019)
Language: Slovenian

IO je zoper to sodbo pri Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (pritožbeno sodišče v ’s‑Hertogenboschu, Nizozemska) vložil pritožbo. To sodišče navaja, da se stranki v sporu, ki mu je predložen, ne strinjata glede tega, ali mora biti IO zaradi svoje dejavnosti člana nadzornega sveta opredeljen kot „podjetnik“ v smislu člena 7 zakona iz leta 1968 o prometnem davku in „davčni zavezanec“ v smislu členov 9 in 10 Direktive o DDV. V zvezi s tem ni sporno, da zadevna oseba kot član tega nadzornega sveta trajno sodeluje v gospodarskem življenju in zato opravlja ekonomsko dejavnost. Vendar se stranki ne strinjata glede tega, ali se ta dejavnost izvaja neodvisno.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (pritožbeno sodišče v ’s‑Hertogenboschu, Nizozemska))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "IO"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "IO"->"Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (pritožbeno sodišče v ’s‑Hertogenboschu, Nizozemska))"[label="IO je zoper to sodbo pri Gerechtshof ’s‑Hertogenbosch (pritožbeno sodišče v ’s‑Hertogenboschu, Nizozemska) vložil pritožbo."];

}