C-236/11 Commission v Italy

ARRÊT DE LA COUR (troisième chambre)

26 septembre 2013 (*)

«Manquement d’État – Fiscalité – TVA – Directive 2006/112/CE – Articles 306 à 310 – Régime particulier des agences de voyages – Divergences entre versions linguistiques – Législation nationale prévoyant l’application de ce régime particulier à des personnes autres que les voyageurs –– Notions de ‘voyageur’ et de ‘client’»

Dans l’affaire C‑236/11,

ayant pour objet un recours en manquement au titre de l’article 258 TFUE, introduit le 17 mai 2011,

Commission européenne, représentée par Mmes C. Soulay et D. Recchia, en qualité d’agents, ayant élu domicile à Luxembourg,

partie requérante,

contre

République italienne, représentée par Mme G. Palmieri, en qualité d’agent, assistée de M. G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato, ayant élu domicile à Luxembourg,

partie défenderesse,

soutenue par:

République tchèque, représentée par MM. M. Smolek et T. Müller ainsi que par Mme J. Očková, en qualité d’agents,

République hellénique, représentée par Mme E.‑M. Mamouna, en qualité d’agent,

Royaume d’Espagne, représentée par Mme S. Centeno Huerta, en qualité d’agent, ayant élu domicile à Luxembourg,

République française, représentée par MM. G. de Bergues et J.‑S. Pilczer, en qualité d’agents,

République de Pologne, représentée par MM. M. Szpunar et B. Majczyna, en qualité d’agents,

République de Finlande, représentée par M. J. Heliskoski, en qualité d’agent,

parties intervenantes,

LA COUR (troisième chambre),

composée de M. M. Ilešič, président de chambre, MM. E. Jarašiūnas, A. Ó Caoimh, Mme C. Toader et M. C. G. Fernlund (rapporteur), juges,

avocat général: Mme E. Sharpston,

greffier: Mme M. Ferreira, administrateur principal,

vu la procédure écrite et à la suite de l’audience du 6 mars 2013,

ayant entendu l’avocat général en ses conclusions à l’audience du 6 juin 2013,

rend le présent

Arrêt

Legal context and the dispute

1Par sa requête, la Commission européenne demande à la Cour de constater que, en permettant aux agences de voyages d’appliquer le régime particulier des agences de voyages aux services de voyages vendus à des personnes autres que les voyageurs, la République italienne a manqué aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu des articles 306 à 310 de la directive 2006/112/CE du Conseil, du 28 novembre 2006, relative au système commun de taxe sur la valeur ajoutée (JO L 347, p. 1, ci-après la «directive TVA»).

Le cadre juridique

Le droit de l’Union

2L’article 26 de la sixième directive 77/388/CEE du Conseil, du 17 mai 1977, en matière d’harmonisation des législations des États membres relatives aux taxes sur le chiffre d’affaires – Système commun de taxe sur la valeur ajoutée: assiette uniforme (JO L 145, p. 1, ci-après la «sixième directive»), dans sa version en langue italienne (GU L 145, pag. 1), disposait:

«1. Les États membres appliquent la taxe sur la valeur ajoutée [(ci-après la ʻTVAʼ)] aux opérations des agences de voyages conformément au présent article, dans la mesure où ces agences agissent en leur propre nom à l’égard du voyageur [‘viaggiatore’] et lorsqu’elles utilisent, pour la réalisation du voyage, des livraisons et des prestations de services d’autres assujettis. Le présent article n’est pas applicable aux agences de voyages qui agissent uniquement en qualité d’intermédiaire et auxquelles l’article 11 sous A paragraphe 3 sous c) est applicable. Au sens du présent article, sont également considérés comme agences de voyages les organisateurs de circuits touristiques.

2. Les opérations effectuées par l’agence de voyages pour la réalisation du voyage sont considérées comme une prestation de service unique de l’agence de voyages au voyageur [‘viaggiatore’]. Celle-ci est imposée dans l’État membre dans lequel l’agence de voyages a établi le siège de son activité économique ou un établissement stable à partir duquel elle a fourni la prestation de services. Pour cette prestation de services est considérée comme base d’imposition et comme prix hors taxe, au sens de l’article 22 paragraphe 3 sous b), la marge de l’agence de voyages, c’est-à-dire la différence entre le montant total à payer par le voyageur [‘viaggiatore’] hors [TVA] et le coût effectif supporté par l’agence de voyages pour les livraisons et prestations de services d’autres assujettis, dans la mesure où ces opérations profitent directement au voyageur [‘viaggiatore’].

[...]

4. Les montants de la [TVA] qui sont portés en compte à l’agence de voyages par d’autres assujettis pour les opérations visées au paragraphe 2 et qui profitent directement au voyageur [‘viaggiatore’] ne sont ni déductibles, ni remboursables dans aucun État membre.»

3Les articles 306 à 310 de la directive TVA, dans sa version en langue italienne, prévoient sous le chapitre 3 de cette directive, intitulé «Régime particulier des agences de voyages»:

«Article 306

1. Les États membres appliquent un régime particulier de la TVA aux opérations des agences de voyages conformément au présent chapitre, dans la mesure où ces agences agissent en leur propre nom à l’égard du voyageur [‘viaggiatore’] et lorsqu’elles utilisent, pour la réalisation du voyage, des livraisons de biens et des prestations de services d’autres assujettis.

Le présent régime particulier n’est pas applicable aux agences de voyages qui agissent uniquement en qualité d’intermédiaire et auxquelles s’applique, pour calculer la base d’imposition, l’article 79, premier alinéa, point c).

2. Aux fins du présent chapitre, les organisateurs de circuits touristiques sont considérés comme agences de voyages.

Article 307

Les opérations effectuées, dans les conditions prévues à l’article 306, par l’agence de voyages pour la réalisation du voyage sont considérées comme une prestation de services unique de l’agence de voyages au voyageur [‘viaggiatore’].

La prestation unique est imposée dans l’État membre dans lequel l’agence de voyages a établi le siège de son activité économique ou un établissement stable à partir duquel elle a fourni la prestation de services.

Article 308

Pour la prestation de services unique fournie par l’agence de voyages, est considérée comme base d’imposition et comme prix hors TVA, au sens de l’article 226, point 8), la marge de l’agence de voyages, c’est-à-dire la différence entre le montant total, hors TVA, à payer par le voyageur [‘viaggiatore’] et le coût effectif supporté par l’agence de voyages pour les livraisons de biens et les prestations de services d’autres assujettis, dans la mesure où ces opérations profitent directement au voyageur [‘viaggiatore’].

[...]

Article 310

Les montants de la TVA qui sont portés en compte à l’agence de voyages par d’autres assujettis pour les opérations qui sont visées à l’article 307 et qui profitent directement au voyageur [‘viaggiatore’] ne sont ni déductibles, ni remboursables dans aucun État membre.»

Le droit italien

4L’article 74 ter du décret du président de la République n° 633, du 26 octobre 1972, instituant et régissant la taxe sur la valeur ajoutée (supplément ordinaire à la GURI nº 1, du 11 novembre 1972, p. 1), prévoit:

«1. Les opérations effectuées par les agences de voyages et de tourisme pour l’organisation de forfaits touristiques constitués, conformément à l’article 2 du décret législatif n° 111, du 17 mars 1995, de voyages, de vacances, de circuits tout compris et de services connexes, en contrepartie du paiement d’un prix global, sont considérés comme une prestation de services unique. Les dispositions du présent article s’appliquent également lorsque les prestations susdites sont fournies par les agences de voyages et de tourisme par l’intermédiaire de mandataires; ces dispositions ne s’appliquent pas aux agences de voyages et de tourisme qui agissent au nom et pour le compte des clients.»

La procédure précontentieuse et la procédure devant la Cour

5Le 23 mars 2007, la Commission a adressé une lettre de mise en demeure à la République italienne, dans laquelle elle faisait valoir que, en permettant que le régime particulier des agences de voyages soit appliqué à des prestations fournies à des personnes autres que les voyageurs, cet État membre ne s’était pas conformé aux articles 306 à 310 de la directive TVA.

6Dans sa lettre en réponse du 21 mai 2007, la République italienne a contesté l’interprétation donnée par la Commission des articles 306 à 310 de la directive TVA.

7N’étant pas satisfaite de cette réponse, la Commission a émis, le 29 février 2008, un avis motivé auquel la République italienne a répondu par une lettre du 29 avril 2008, dans laquelle elle a maintenu sa position.

8C’est dans ces conditions que la Commission a décidé d’introduire le présent recours.

9Par ordonnance du président de la Cour du 13 octobre 2011, la République tchèque, la République hellénique, le Royaume d’Espagne, la République française, la République de Pologne et la République de Finlande ont été admis à intervenir au soutien des conclusions de la République italienne.

Sur le recours

Argumentation des parties

10La Commission considère que le régime particulier des agences de voyages, prévu aux articles 306 à 310 de la directive TVA, est applicable uniquement en cas de vente de voyages à des voyageurs (ci-après l’«approche fondée sur le voyageur»). Elle reproche à la République italienne d’avoir autorisé l’application de ce régime en cas de vente de voyages à tout type de clients (ci-après l’«approche fondée sur le client»).

11Cette institution rappelle que les dispositions de ces articles 306 à 310 reprennent, en substance, celles de l’article 26, paragraphes 1 à 4, de la sixième directive.

12Or, la Commission soutient que l’intention du législateur de l’Union, lors de l’adoption de la sixième directive, était de restreindre le régime particulier des agences de voyages aux prestations fournies au voyageur, consommateur final. À l’appui de cette affirmation, elle fait valoir que cinq des six versions linguistiques initiales de cette directive utilisaient systématiquement le terme «voyageur» à l’article 26 de ladite directive d’une manière parfaitement claire et cohérente. Il en résulterait que ce terme ne nécessitait aucun effort d’interprétation allant au-delà de son sens littéral, de sorte que l’interprétation dudit article 26 était univoque.

13L’emploi du terme «client» («customer») dans la version en langue anglaise de la sixième directive constituerait une erreur, qui n’aurait d’ailleurs été commise qu’une seule fois, à l’article 26, paragraphe 1, de celle-ci. Cette version en langue anglaise ayant servi de base aux traductions ultérieures de la sixième directive, ce terme aurait souvent été repris dans ces dernières, de même que dans de nombreuses versions linguistiques des articles 306 à 310 de la directive TVA.

14Lors de l’audience devant la Cour, la Commission a précisé que la version en langue française de la sixième directive qui utilisait uniquement le terme «voyageur» avait constitué le texte sur lequel tous les États membres concernés avaient travaillé et s’étaient mis d’accord.

15La Commission souligne que les dispositions relatives au régime particulier des agences de voyages doivent faire l’objet d’une interprétation uniforme. La coexistence de l’approche fondée sur le voyageur et de celle fondée sur le client serait source de doubles impositions et de distorsions de concurrence.

16La Commission précise, en se référant à l’article 26 de la sixième directive, les raisons pour lesquelles, même si le terme «client» apparaît dans certaines versions linguistiques des articles 306 à 310 de la directive TVA, il doit être néanmoins entendu dans le sens de «voyageur».

17Tout d’abord, la Commission estime que, si l’approche fondée sur le client devait être retenue, la condition figurant à l’article 26, paragraphe 1, de la sixième directive, selon laquelle l’agence agit «en son propre nom», serait redondante puisqu’un opérateur agit toujours en son propre nom à l’égard de son client. Il en résulte, selon la Commission, que ces termes ne doivent pas recevoir une interprétation littérale et que le mot «client» doit être entendu dans le même sens que celui retenu dans les cinq autres versions linguistiques initiales de cette directive, à savoir dans le sens de «voyageur». La Commission soutient, à cet égard, qu’une agence de voyages peut agir à l’égard d’un «voyageur» tant en son propre nom qu’au nom et pour le compte de tiers.

18Ensuite, si le législateur de l’Union avait entendu conférer au terme «client» non pas le sens de voyageur, mais celui de tout type de «clients», il en résulterait des conséquences illogiques, dès lors que le régime particulier des agences de voyages s’appliquerait même lorsqu’une agence agit en tant qu’intermédiaire, notamment lorsqu’elle recherche des clients pour le compte d’un hôtelier, conformément à un contrat d’intermédiation conclu avec celui-ci.

19La Commission considère que ce caractère illogique apparaît d’autant plus clairement que le mot «voyageur» est utilisé dans la version en langue anglaise de l’article 26, paragraphe 2, première phrase, de la sixième directive, aux termes de laquelle «les opérations effectuées par l’agence de voyages pour la réalisation du voyage sont considérées comme une prestation de service unique de l’agence de voyages au voyageur [‘traveller’]». Or, selon la Commission, cette phrase serait dénuée de sens si le régime particulier des agences de voyages s’appliquait sans qu’il soit tenu compte de la qualité du destinataire des services. Si tel était le cas, le législateur aurait dû, selon cette institution, utiliser de manière systématique le terme «client».

20La Commission ajoute que les six versions linguistiques initiales de l’article 26, paragraphe 2, troisième phrase, de la sixième directive utilisent le terme «voyageur». Il serait, partant, incohérent de mentionner le «montant total à payer par le voyageur» si le régime particulier des agences de voyages pouvait s’appliquer indépendamment de la qualité du client de l’agence de voyages. En effet, lorsqu’une telle agence effectue une vente à une autre agence de voyages, il faudrait alors, selon la Commission, calculer la marge visée à cet article 26, paragraphe 2, troisième phrase, en prenant en compte la différence entre le montant à payer par le voyageur et les coûts supportés par la première agence, ce qui serait dénué de pertinence en l’absence de lien entre celle-ci et le voyageur.

21Enfin, la Commission invoque deux autres arguments. Elle souligne, premièrement, que les dispositions de l’article 26 de la sixième directive sont restées en vigueur pendant près de 30 ans, jusqu’à l’abrogation de cette dernière, et que les versions linguistiques de cet article, postérieures aux six versions initiales, adoptent, dans leur grande majorité, le libellé des cinq versions initiales identiques, en utilisant uniquement le terme «voyageur». Seules cinq versions linguistiques ultérieures de cet article se seraient référées à la version en langue anglaise. Deuxièmement, la Commission rappelle que les exceptions au régime général de la TVA doivent être interprétées de manière stricte.

22Dans ces conditions, bien que l’approche fondée sur le client serait la mieux à même d’atteindre les objectifs visés par le régime particulier des agences de voyages, cette circonstance n’impliquerait pas que cette approche soit correcte. La Commission reconnaît que ce régime particulier est perfectible, mais elle souligne que les États membres ne peuvent adopter de leur propre initiative une telle approche, en s’écartant des dispositions figurant expressément dans la sixième directive. À cet égard, la Commission fait référence, en particulier, au point 28 de l’arrêt du 6 octobre 2005, Commission/Espagne (C‑204/03, Rec. p. I‑8389). Elle ajoute que ledit régime particulier a été introduit pour faire face à la situation qui prévalait en 1977, à une époque où les voyages étaient principalement vendus directement aux voyageurs par les agences de voyages. Le secteur concerné compterait aujourd’hui un plus grand nombre d’opérateurs, mais ce serait non pas aux États membres, mais au législateur de l’Union qu’il incomberait de pallier les insuffisances du même régime particulier.

23À la suite d’observations des États membres intervenants, tout en maintenant fermement l’approche fondée sur le voyageur, la Commission a légèrement nuancé sa position en indiquant que le terme «voyageur» désigne non seulement la personne physique, mais aussi la personne morale qui achète un forfait pour ses besoins propres et qui est, par conséquent, le preneur final du service de voyages. Est donc comprise sous ce terme, selon la Commission, la société qui achète des services de voyages pour ses employés. En revanche, le terme «voyageur» ne serait pas applicable à la personne physique ou à la personne morale qui revend ledit service à une autre personne. Cette institution souligne que le régime particulier des agences de voyages n’est pas applicable à un stade antérieur à la vente d’un tel service au preneur final.

24La République italienne conteste l’interprétation que donne la Commission du régime particulier des agences de voyages figurant aux articles 306 à 310 de la directive TVA.

25Cet État membre fait valoir, de sa propre initiative, ou en marquant son accord avec les États membres intervenants, les arguments suivants.

26L’interprétation littérale à laquelle s’est livrée la Commission ne pourrait prévaloir, dès lors que, outre la version en langue anglaise de l’article 306 de la directive TVA, de nombreuses autres versions linguistiques de cette disposition, à savoir celles en langues bulgare, polonaise, portugaise, roumaine, slovaque, finnoise et suédoise, emploieraient non pas le terme «voyageur», mais le terme «client».

27L’analyse des termes utilisés dans les dispositions entourant l’article 26, paragraphe 1, de la sixième directive ou cet article 306 ne pourrait davantage servir de guide en vue de déterminer la portée exacte de ces deux dernières dispositions. En effet, l’examen des différentes versions linguistiques de celles-ci révélerait que le terme «voyageur» n’est utilisé de manière systématique ni à l’article 26, paragraphes 1 à 4, de la sixième directive ni aux articles 306 à 310 de la directive TVA. Certaines versions linguistiques utiliseraient systématiquement le terme «client», tandis que d’autres utiliseraient tantôt le terme «voyageur», tantôt celui de «client». Ces divergences seraient source d’ambiguïté, ainsi qu’en attesterait le fait que, notamment, la République italienne, la République tchèque, la République hellénique, le Royaume d’Espagne et la République française mettent en œuvre l’approche fondée sur le client, alors même que les versions linguistiques de la directive TVA, telles que publiées dans leurs langues nationales, emploient le terme «voyageur».

28La République italienne en déduit qu’il convient de recourir à une interprétation téléologique des dispositions concernées en recherchant les objectifs poursuivis par le régime particulier des agences de voyages. Ces derniers ne seraient d’ailleurs pas contestés par la Commission et comprendraient, d’une part, la simplification des règles relatives à la TVA applicables aux agences de voyages et, d’autre part, la répartition des recettes de TVA entre les États membres. Or, il serait également constant que l’approche fondée sur le client est celle qui est la mieux à même d’atteindre ces objectifs. Par conséquent, cette approche constituerait la seule interprétation correcte.

29La République italienne souligne que la qualité du preneur du service, qu’il s’agisse du voyageur, consommateur final, ou d’une agence intermédiaire, n’est pas pertinente. Cet État membre s’appuie par analogie, notamment, sur l’arrêt du 22 octobre 1998, Madgett et Baldwin (C‑308/96 et C‑94/97, Rec. p. I‑6229), et soutient que, dans cet arrêt, malgré le caractère dérogatoire du régime particulier en cause, la Cour s’est livrée à une interprétation large de l’article 26 de la sixième directive en faisant prévaloir l’objectif poursuivi par ce régime sur le libellé de cet article.

30L’approche fondée sur le client, contrairement à celle fondée sur le voyageur, permettrait de respecter le principe de neutralité de la TVA en traitant de la même manière les opérateurs qui vendent directement des voyages à forfait aux voyageurs et ceux qui vendent de tels voyages à d’autres opérateurs.

31S’agissant du risque de double imposition invoqué par la Commission, la République italienne soutient qu’il est dû à la coexistence des deux approches en cause et qu’il disparaîtrait si une seule approche était retenue.

32Quant aux prétendues incohérences relevées par la Commission, s’agissant, en premier lieu, des termes «en son propre nom à l’égard du client», la République italienne conteste leur existence. La Commission confondrait l’expression «à l’égard ‘du’ client», utilisée dans la version en langue anglaise de l’article 26 de la sixième directive, et l’expression «à l’égard de ‘son’ client». Seule cette seconde expression pourrait avoir un caractère redondant.

33Par ailleurs, la Commission, elle-même, aurait utilisé l’expression «qui agit en son propre nom à l’égard des clients» dans un grand nombre de versions linguistiques de sa proposition de directive du Conseil, du 8 février 2002, modifiant la directive 77/388 en ce qui concerne le régime particulier des agences de voyages [COM(2002) 64 final].

34La crainte exprimée par la Commission de voir ladite expression conduire à l’application du régime particulier des agences de voyages aux intermédiaires n’aurait pas lieu d’être en raison de la mention expresse figurant à l’article 306, paragraphe 1, second alinéa, de la directive TVA qui exclut cette possibilité.

35S’agissant, en second lieu, de l’expression «à payer par le voyageur», la Cour aurait déjà reconnu que celle-ci ne saurait être interprétée littéralement et qu’elle couvre également la contrepartie à payer par une tierce personne.

36L’approche de la Commission soulèverait en outre un problème pratique, en ce sens que, si le régime particulier des agences de voyages ne s’appliquait qu’aux ventes au voyageur, consommateur final, il pourrait être nécessaire de vérifier, au cas par cas, si l’acheteur d’un voyage est bien la personne qui va bénéficier de ce dernier et s’il ne va pas le revendre à une autre personne.

37En outre, la référence, par la Commission, à l’arrêt Commission/Espagne, précité, ne serait pas pertinente, dès lors que les dispositions en cause dans l’affaire ayant donné lieu à cet arrêt, contrairement à celles en cause dans le présent recours, étaient univoques.

Appréciation de la Cour

38Aux fins d’apprécier le présent recours, il convient de déterminer si, en autorisant les agences de voyages à appliquer le régime particulier en cause aux opérations que celles-ci effectuent non seulement avec les «voyageurs», mais également avec tout type de «clients», la République italienne a opéré une transposition correcte des articles 306 à 310 de la directive TVA.

39Les versions en langue italienne desdits articles 306 à 310, d’une part, et de l’article 26, paragraphes 1 à 4, de la sixième directive, d’autre part, emploient l’une comme l’autre, le terme «voyageur» de manière systématique. En revanche, les autres versions linguistiques de chacune de ces deux directives utilisent les termes «voyageur» et/ou «client» en faisant parfois varier l’emploi de ceux-ci d’une disposition à l’autre.

40Malgré ces divergences particulièrement importantes, la Commission soutient qu’une interprétation littérale, fondée sur cinq des six versions linguistiques initiales de la sixième directive qui emploient le terme «voyageur» de manière systématique, est possible, le recours au terme «client» dans la version en langue anglaise de cette directive constituant une erreur.

41La circonstance que seule cette version en langue anglaise utilisait le terme «client», de surcroît dans une seule occurrence, pourrait laisser présumer qu’il s’agissait d’une erreur. Les explications fournies par la Commission lors de l’audience, selon lesquelles le document de travail à l’origine de la sixième directive était rédigé en langue française, pourrait également corroborer l’idée selon laquelle une erreur a été commise à l’occasion de la traduction de cette directive en langue anglaise.

42Toutefois, plusieurs constatations conduisent à remettre en cause cette analyse de la Commission.

43Tout d’abord, force est de constater que, s’il s’agissait d’une erreur, celle-ci n’a pas été corrigée dans la version en langue anglaise de la sixième directive.

44Ensuite, loin de n’apparaître qu’une seule fois et d’être cantonné à une version linguistique en particulier, le terme «client» a été employé dans de nombreuses autres versions linguistiques de la sixième directive et n’a pas seulement été utilisée à l’article 26, paragraphe 1, de celle-ci.

45En outre, alors que cette prétendue erreur aurait pu être corrigée à tout le moins lors de l’adoption de la directive TVA, tel n’a pas été le cas, puisque le terme «client» figure également dans de nombreuses versions linguistiques des articles 306 à 310 de cette directive, et parfois de manière non systématique.

46Enfin, la proposition de directive mentionnée au point 33 du présent arrêt, laquelle visait à remplacer la législation existante par un texte adoptant en substance l’approche fondée sur le client, employait le terme «voyageur» dans la version en langue française de l’article 26, paragraphe 1, de cette directive, tandis qu’elle utilisait le terme «client» dans la version en langue anglaise de cette même disposition.

47Il s’ensuit que, contrairement à ce que prétend la Commission, une interprétation purement littérale du régime particulier des agences de voyages fondée sur le texte d’une ou de plusieurs versions linguistiques, à l’exclusion des autres, ne saurait prévaloir. Conformément à une jurisprudence constante, il y a lieu de considérer que les dispositions du droit de l’Union doivent être interprétées et appliquées de manière uniforme à la lumière des versions établies dans toutes les langues de l’Union. En cas de disparité entre les diverses versions linguistiques d’un texte de l’Union, la disposition en cause doit être interprétée en fonction de l’économie générale et de la finalité de la réglementation dont elle constitue un élément (arrêt du 8 décembre 2005, Jyske Finans, C‑280/04, Rec. p. I‑10683, point 31).

48En l’espèce, les autres dispositions qui entourent celles utilisant le terme «client», tel qu’il est employé dans la version en langue anglaise de la sixième directive, varient selon les versions linguistiques des deux directives en cause, si bien qu’aucune conclusion quant à l’interprétation du régime particulier des agences de voyages ne peut être tirée de l’économie de ces dispositions.

49Quant à la finalité de ce régime particulier, la Cour a rappelé à maintes reprises que les services fournis par les agences de voyages et par les organisateurs de circuits touristiques se caractérisent par le fait que, en règle générale, ces services se composent de multiples prestations, notamment en matière de transport et d’hébergement, qui sont exécutées tant à l’intérieur qu’à l’extérieur du territoire de l’État membre où l’entreprise a son siège ou un établissement stable. L’application des règles de droit commun concernant le lieu d’imposition, la base d’imposition et la déduction de la taxe en amont se heurterait, en raison de la multiplicité et de la localisation des prestations fournies, à des difficultés pratiques pour ces entreprises, qui seraient de nature à entraver l’exercice de leur activité. C’est afin d’adapter les règles applicables au caractère spécifique de cette activité que le législateur de l’Union a institué, à l’article 26, paragraphes 2 à 4, de la sixième directive, un régime particulier de TVA (voir arrêts du 12 novembre 1992, Van Ginkel, C‑163/91, Rec. p. I‑5723, points 13 à 15; Madgett et Baldwin, précité, point 18; du 19 juin 2003, First Choice Holidays, C‑149/01, Rec. p. I‑6289, points 23 à 25; du 13 octobre 2005, ISt, C‑200/04, Rec. p. I‑8691, point 21, ainsi que du 9 décembre 2010, Minerva Kulturreisen, C‑31/10, Rec. p. I‑12889, points 17 et 18).

50Ledit régime particulier poursuit, par conséquent, un objectif de simplification des règles relatives à la TVA applicables aux agences de voyages. Il vise également à répartir les recettes provenant de la perception de cette taxe de manière équilibrée entre les États membres, en assurant, d’une part, l’attribution des recettes de TVA relatives à chaque service individuel à l’État membre dans lequel a lieu la consommation finale du service et, d’autre part, l’attribution de celles afférentes à la marge de l’agence de voyages à l’État membre dans lequel cette dernière est établie.

51Or, il convient de souligner, ce qui n’est d’ailleurs pas contesté, que l’approche fondée sur le client est celle qui est la mieux à même d’atteindre ces deux objectifs en permettant aux agences de voyages de bénéficier de règles simplifiées quel que soit le type de clients auquel elles fournissent leurs prestations et en favorisant, par là même, une répartition équilibrée des recettes entre les États membres.

52La circonstance que, lors de l’adoption, en 1977, du régime particulier des agences de voyages, la majorité de ces dernières vendaient leurs services directement au consommateur final n’implique pas que le législateur ait entendu limiter ce régime particulier à ce type de ventes et exclure de celui-ci les ventes à d’autres opérateurs.

53En effet, lorsqu’un opérateur organise un voyage à forfait et vend celui-ci à une agence de voyages qui le revend ensuite à un consommateur final, c’est ce premier opérateur qui assume la tâche consistant à combiner plusieurs prestations achetées auprès de divers tiers assujettis à la TVA. Au regard de la finalité du régime particulier des agences de voyages, il importe que cet opérateur puisse bénéficier de règles simplifiées en matière de TVA et que celles-ci ne soient pas réservées à l’agence de voyages qui se borne, dans un tel cas, à revendre au consommateur final le forfait qu’elle a acquis auprès dudit opérateur.

54En outre, il convient de rappeler que la Cour a déjà été amenée à interpréter le terme «voyageur» en lui conférant un sens plus étendu que celui de consommateur final. Ainsi, au point 28 de l’arrêt First Choice Holidays, précité, la Cour a jugé que les termes «à payer par le voyageur», utilisés à l’article 26, paragraphe 2, de la sixième directive, ne sauraient être interprétés littéralement en ce sens qu’ils excluraient de la base d’imposition de la TVA un élément de la «contrepartie» obtenu de la part d’un tiers au sens de l’article 11, A, paragraphe 1, sous a), de cette directive.

55Les autres objections émises par la Commission aux fins d’écarter l’approche fondée sur le client ne sauraient remettre en cause cette analyse.

56Le fait que le régime particulier des agences de voyages constitue une exception aux règles de droit commun, de sorte que, en tant que telle, cette exception ne doit pas être étendue au-delà de ce qui est nécessaire pour atteindre les objectifs qu’elle poursuit (voir arrêt First Choice Holidays, précité, point 22), n’implique cependant pas qu’il faille adopter l’approche fondée sur le voyageur si celle-ci porte atteinte à l’effet utile de ce régime particulier.

57Tout en reconnaissant que le régime particulier des agences de voyages est perfectible, la Commission souligne, en se fondant sur le point 28 de l’arrêt Commission/Espagne, précité, qu’il n’appartient pas aux États membres d’adopter de leur propre initiative une approche qui, selon ces États, améliore ledit régime car, ce faisant, ils se substituent au législateur de l’Union. Toutefois, cet arrêt ne saurait être utilement invoqué en l’espèce, puisque, contrairement au régime particulier des agences de voyages, la législation en cause dans cet arrêt était univoque.

58L’argument tiré des prétendues incohérences qui résulteraient d’une lecture du terme «client» au sens non pas de «voyageur», mais de tout type de «clients» ne vaut qu’au regard de la version initiale en langue anglaise de la sixième directive et des versions linguistiques postérieures, calquées sur celle-ci, qui n’utilisent ce terme que dans une seule occurrence. En ce qui concerne les versions linguistiques de la directive TVA qui emploient ce terme de manière systématique aux articles 306 à 310 de celle-ci, cet argument est inopérant.

59Quant à l’existence d’un risque de voir les agences de voyages appliquer ledit régime particulier même lorsqu’elles agissent comme intermédiaire, il suffit de relever que, compte tenu des termes explicites de l’article 306, paragraphe 1, second alinéa, de la directive TVA, qui excluent, en tout état de cause, une telle possibilité, ce risque n’est pas fondé.

60Eu égard à l’ensemble des considérations qui précèdent, il convient d’interpréter les dispositions des articles 306 à 310 de la directive TVA en suivant l’approche fondée sur le client.

61Il y a lieu, par conséquent, de rejeter le recours de la Commission comme étant non fondé.

Sur les dépens

62En vertu de l’article 138, paragraphe 1, du règlement de procédure de la Cour, toute partie qui succombe est condamnée aux dépens, s’il est conclu en ce sens. La République italienne ayant conclu à la condamnation de la Commission et celle-ci ayant succombé en ses moyens, il y a lieu de la condamner aux dépens. Par ailleurs, conformément à l’article 140, paragraphe 1, du même règlement, selon lequel les États membres qui sont intervenus au litige supportent leurs propres dépens, il convient de décider que la République tchèque, la République hellénique, le Royaume d’Espagne, la République française, la République de Pologne et la République de Finlande supporteront leurs propres dépens.

Operative part

Par ces motifs, la Cour (troisième chambre) déclare et arrête:

1) Le recours est rejeté.

2) La Commission européenne est condamnée à supporter les dépens exposés par la République italienne.

3) La République tchèque, la République hellénique, le Royaume d’Espagne, la République française, la République de Pologne et la République de Finlande supportent leurs propres dépens.

Signatures

Signatures

Notes

* Langue de procédure: l’italien.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

Sharpston

delivered on 6 June 2013 (1)

Case C‑189/11

European Commission

v

Kingdom of Spain

Case C‑193/11

European Commission

v

Republic of Poland

Case C‑236/11

European Commission

v

Italian Republic

Case C‑269/11

European Commission

v

Czech Republic

Case C‑293/11

European Commission

v

Hellenic Republic

Case C‑296/11

European Commission

v

French Republic

Case C‑309/11

European Commission

v

Republic of Finland

Case C‑450/11

European Commission

v

Portuguese Republic

(VAT – Special scheme for travel agents)

Introduction

1In this series of infringement actions, the Commission takes issue with an interpretation of Directive 2006/112 (2) under which eight Member States consider that the special VAT margin scheme for travel agents (‘the margin scheme’) set out in Articles 306 to 310 of that directive (Annex I to this Opinion) applies regardless of whether the customer is actually the traveller or not. On the basis of the terminology used in some language versions of the provisions in question, that is referred to as ‘the customer approach’. The Commission asserts that, under the legislation as it stands (and in accordance with the practice in the remaining Member States), the margin scheme applies only where the customer is the traveller. Its interpretation is referred to, on the basis of the terminology in other language versions, as ‘the traveller approach’. That is the essence of the principal issue in all these cases, and of the sole issue in seven of them. I shall address only that issue in the present Opinion.

2With regard to the Kingdom of Spain alone, the Commission objects also to three further aspects of the national rules relating to the margin scheme, concerning, respectively, the exclusion from the margin scheme of situations in which retail travel agents sell travel packages organised by wholesale agents, the statement of the amount of VAT included in the price and the determination of the taxable amount over a tax period. I address those issues in a separate Opinion, also delivered today.

The Package Travel Directive

3The definitions included in Article 2 of the Package Travel Directive (3) are not directly relevant here. However, they may provide useful background for understanding the margin scheme. For the purposes of the Package Travel Directive:

‘1. “package” means the pre-arranged combination of not fewer than two of the following when sold or offered for sale at an inclusive price and when the service covers a period of more than 24 hours or includes overnight accommodation:

(a) transport;

(b) accommodation;

(c) other tourist services not ancillary to transport or accommodation and accounting for a significant proportion of the package.

…;

2. “organiser” means the person who … organises packages and sells or offers them for sale, whether directly or through a retailer;

3. “retailer” means the person who sells or offers for sale the package put together by the organiser;

4. “consumer” means the person who takes or agrees to take the package …, or any person on whose behalf the principal contractor agrees to purchase the package … or any person to whom the principal contractor or any of the other beneficiaries transfers the package …;

5. “contract” means the agreement linking the consumer to the organiser and/or the retailer.’

The margin scheme

4The margin scheme has its genesis in Article 26 of the Sixth VAT Directive (Annex II to this Opinion). (4) Its essence is simple. Where a travel agent, acting in his own name, uses the supplies and services of other taxable persons in the provision of travel facilities, all the transactions are to be treated as a single supply, subject to VAT in the travel agent’s Member State. The taxable amount is deemed to be the travel agent’s margin – the difference between the VAT-inclusive cost to him of the supplies and services which he includes in the package which he sells and the price, exclusive of VAT, which he charges for that package.

5The margin scheme was not included in the Commission’s initial or revised proposals for the legislation, so there is no written legislative history from which any indication as to its purpose may be directly gleaned. However, it is common ground in the present proceedings that the aim was twofold: to simplify matters for travel agents who would otherwise have to deduct or reclaim input VAT in different Member States and to ensure that each service is taxed where it is provided.

6Without an arrangement such as the margin scheme, a travel agent or tour operator putting together a holiday or travel package within the European Union would be liable for output VAT on the whole price of the package in his own Member State. He would have to recover the VAT charged to him, often in other Member States, for supplies such as transport, accommodation, meals, guided tours, cruises or organised leisure activities to be provided in those Member States. Not only would that involve significant administrative complexity but, as a result, such services would be subject to VAT not in the Member State in which they were in fact provided and consumed but in the Member State in which the package was purchased. Significant VAT revenue might thus be diverted from Member States providing tourist destinations to those providing the tourists.

7Apart from those effects, however, the margin scheme is in principle neutral as regards the VAT system. Over the chain of supplies as a whole, no more or less is charged than would otherwise be the case, and, in principle, no residual amount becomes irrecoverably embedded at an intermediary stage, so as to burden one or other of the economic operators involved. A comparative example may be helpful in that regard.

8If the cost of (say, transport, hotel and restaurant) services bought by the travel agent and included in the package is 100, exclusive of VAT, if the travel agent’s net margin on those services is 20 and if VAT is levied at 20% (in all Member States concerned, if there are more than one), then:

– under the normal scheme, the travel agent buys at 100, plus VAT of 20, making a VAT-inclusive price of 120; adding his margin of 20 to the VAT-exclusive price, he sells at 120, plus VAT of 24, making a VAT-inclusive price of 144; he deducts input VAT of 20 and accounts to the tax authority for the difference of 4 between output and input VAT;

– under the margin scheme, the travel agent buys at 100, plus VAT of 20, making a VAT-inclusive price of 120; adding his margin of 20 to the VAT-inclusive price, he sells at 140, plus VAT of 4, making a VAT-inclusive price of 144; he deducts no input VAT but accounts to the tax authority only for the output VAT of 4 on his margin of 20.

In both cases, the VAT-inclusive selling price is 144 and the tax authorities collect VAT of 24, the entire burden of which is borne by the purchaser of the package.

9Where the services in question are provided in one or more Member States other than that in which the package is sold, under the normal scheme the travel agent cannot simply deduct the input VAT of 20 from his output VAT of 24. Unless he is registered for VAT in those other Member States, he must go through the rather more complicated process of claiming a refund there, (5) for which he might have to wait for some not inconsiderable time, by contrast with the system of immediate deduction when transactions are confined within a single Member State. Moreover, the Member States in question collect no VAT on services supplied in their territory. Under the margin scheme, however, neither difficulty arises.

10There is no dispute between the parties as to the principles I have set out above. The difference of interpretation concerns only whether, for the margin scheme to apply, the person who buys the package must be the traveller (the person who actually consumes the services or other supplies (6)) or may also be another travel agent. That issue arises in particular, it appears, because it has become increasingly common for travel agents or tour operators (‘organisers’ in the terminology of the Package Travel Directive) to put together holiday or travel packages which they sell to another agent or operator (a ‘retailer’ in the terminology of the Package Travel Directive) before the final sale is made. However, there would be less scope for differing views if the language of the EU legislation were more consistent.

11In the six languages in which the Sixth Directive was originally drafted (Danish, Dutch, English, French, German and Italian), the word ‘traveller’ or its equivalent was used throughout Article 26, except in the English version, which used ‘customer’ just once, in defining the scope of the scheme in Article 26(1): ‘where the travel agents deal with customers in their own name and use the supplies and services of other taxable persons in the provision of travel facilities’. (7)

12With successive enlargements, that anomaly has spread into various other language versions, and has extended, in some cases, to instances where the English uses ‘traveller’.

13In the Sixth Directive, the Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Slovene and Swedish versions followed the English pattern, using ‘customer’ just once, while the Finnish, Greek, Hungarian and Spanish followed the other original languages in using ‘traveller’ throughout. In Czech, ‘customer’ was used throughout, even where the English used ‘traveller’.

14In Directive 2006/112, the pattern changed somewhat. The five original (1977) languages other than English (Danish, Dutch, French, German and Italian), together with Czech, Estonian, Greek, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Slovene and Spanish, use ‘traveller’ throughout. The English pattern is found in Bulgarian, Maltese, Polish and Swedish. ‘Customer’ is used throughout in Portuguese, Romanian and Slovak. Finnish uses ‘customer’ in three instances and ‘traveller’ in two. (8)

15In 2002, the Commission proposed amendments to Article 26 of the Sixth Directive, (9) which included replacing the word ‘traveller’ by ‘customer’ throughout. (10)

16In its explanatory memorandum, (11) the Commission gave the following reasons for proposing that change:

‘… one of the major problems raised by Member States and travel agents alike is the fact that the scheme could strictly only be applied when the travel service was sold to a traveller. Such a rule was tailored to the market situation in 1977, when travel packages were mainly sold by a travel agent directly to the traveller. Nowadays the situation has changed considerably. More persons are operating in the sector and the supply of travel packages is more fractionated than in 1977. Therefore more and more travel services are supplied either to other travel agents or to other taxable persons who use travel services as an incentive for their personnel or in the framework of their business, e.g. seminars.

The current situation, whereby the special scheme is not applicable when the travel service is sold to a person other than the traveller, no longer ensures that VAT revenue is allocated to the Member State where the consumption actually takes place. When a travel agent sells a travel package to another travel agent, the normal rules of taxation should be applied. This means that he should be able to deduct the input VAT he paid to his suppliers and to charge VAT in the Member State where he is established on the whole value of his onward supply of a travel package to the second travel agent. In that case the VAT revenue on the initial supplies (e.g. hotel accommodation) is no longer allocated to the Member States where the different services are consumed, but is redirected to the Member State where the travel agent is established.

To avoid this, several Member States with large tourism industries apply a different interpretation of this Article, and extend the scope of the special scheme to supplies of travel services by travel agents to clients other than travellers. The result is that the original purposes of this scheme, simplification and taxation in the Member State of consumption are better met.

Nevertheless, this leads to differing applications of the special scheme within the Community, a situation which is not compatible with the proper functioning of the internal market and which distorts competition between traders established in different Member States. This is a situation that is unacceptable and therefore the Commission proposes that the first sentence of Article 26(2) be modified by deleting the words “to the traveller”.

The consequence thereof is that the scope of the special scheme is substantially broadened. In its amended version, the special scheme must be applied for all supplies by travel agents under the conditions mentioned in Article 26(1), irrespective of the nature of the customer (private person, taxable person, business, other travel agents, etc.).’

17The proposal has not yet been adopted. It remains before the Council, within which, it appears, no agreement has been reached.

Procedure

18Those, essentially, are the circumstances in which, in 2006, the Commission analysed the application of the margin scheme across the European Union and took the view that 13 Member States were implementing it incorrectly (specifically, they took the customer approach rather than the traveller approach). Some of those Member States (12) then amended their legislation, but others did not. Although the Commission still wished to see its proposed amendment implemented, it considered that uniformity was essential in the internal market and that the unfair competitive advantage enjoyed by some travel operators should be eliminated. (13)

19In accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 226 EC (now Article 258 TFEU), the Commission therefore sent letters of formal notice to all eight of the Member States concerned by the present cases, on 23 March 2007. In the light of their replies, it sent reasoned opinions to seven of those Member States on 29 February 2008 and to the eighth, the Kingdom of Spain, on 9 October 2009. Since the Member States did not comply with the reasoned opinions, the Commission brought the present actions on dates between 20 April and 1 September 2011. It seeks declarations to the effect that, by permitting travel agents to apply the margin scheme when providing travel services to persons other than travellers, the Member States have failed to fulfil their obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112.

20There has been a full written procedure in all cases, with the exception of Case C-293/11 Commission v Greece, in which the Commission waived its right to submit a reply. Several Member States submitted statements in intervention in each other’s cases. A joint hearing was held on 6 March 2013 at which the Commission and all the Member States concerned presented oral argument.

21It is undisputed in any of the cases that the relevant national legislation takes the customer approach. I therefore consider it unnecessary to set out any of that legislation here. The issue (the sole issue in seven of the cases and the first issue in Case C‑189/11 Commission v Spain) is simply whether that is the correct approach or whether, as the Commission submits, a correct interpretation of Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112 requires all Member States to apply the traveller approach.

Brief summary of the main arguments

22The Commission and the defendant Member States all agree that: (i) the aims of the margin scheme are to simplify procedures and ensure equitable collection of VAT revenue without otherwise derogating from the VAT system; (ii) while it is now common for travel or holiday packages to be put together by one travel agent or tour operator and sold to another before final sale to the traveller or holidaymaker, that was not the case when the Sixth Directive was adopted in 1977; (iii) a uniform interpretation is necessary to ensure a harmonised application of the VAT rules in all Member States which does not differentiate between travel agents; (iv) the customer approach embodies the interpretation best suited to achieve the aims of the margin scheme; and (v) that approach is in fact followed in the defendant Member States. Since these points are all undisputed, it does not seem useful to set out any detailed argument on them here; moreover, I can accept all these points, and I shall not devote any further consideration to them in my assessment below. Suffice it to say that, as regards (i) and (iv), I have set out the essentials in my presentation of the margin scheme, (14) that (ii) and (v) are agreed facts and that (iii) is uncontroversial.

23While there is no dispute as to the need for a single, harmonised interpretation throughout the Union, the Commission considers that the broader interpretation involved in the customer approach cannot be achieved without a change to the legislation (the de lege ferenda view), whereas the defendant Member States consider that the provisions as they stand can – and should – receive that broader interpretation (the de lege lata view).

24The lynchpin of the Commission’s argument is linguistic. In only one of five instances, only one of the six original language versions of Article 26 of the Sixth Directive used the term ‘customer’; in all other instances and in all other language versions – in particular in that in which the final text was debated and approved – the term ‘traveller’ was used throughout. The legislature’s intention was thus clearly that the margin scheme should be confined to cases in which the travel agent’s sale was direct to the traveller. (15)

25In addition, in the Commission’s view, two phrases used in the provision would not otherwise make sense. If the meaning were ‘customer’, the words ‘in its own name’ in Article 26(1) of the Sixth Directive (Article 306(1) of Directive 2006/112) would be redundant, as travel agents always act in their own name vis-à-vis their customers (those who buy directly from them), though not always vis-à-vis travellers (who may not be the same persons). And in Article 26(2) of the Sixth Directive (Articles 307 and 308 of Directive 2006/112), the phrases ‘supplied … to the traveller’ and ‘to be paid by the traveller’ would be illogical if the purchaser of the service were another travel agent: where a package put together by one travel agent is sold to another travel agent before being sold to the traveller, how can the first travel agent’s margin (the basis of assessment for VAT) be calculated if the package is to be ‘treated as a single service supplied by [that] travel agent to the traveller’ but the second travel agent applies his own margin?

26The Commission also stresses that, according to settled case-law, provisions which are in the nature of exceptions to a principle must be interpreted strictly. (16) The margin scheme is an exception to the principle of taxation at each stage in the chain of transactions and deduction of input tax at each stage prior to the retail stage. (17)

27Although it agrees that the customer approach would be better suited to achieving the aims of the margin scheme, the Commission emphasises that Member States are required to apply the VAT legislation of the Union even if they consider it to be less than perfect. (18)

28None the less, the Commission specifies that, in its view (which it appears to derive from the purpose of the scheme rather than from any words in the legislation), the margin scheme should apply when a business, which (as a legal person) cannot itself be a ‘traveller’, purchases a travel package to be used by its staff. What matters is simply that the package should not be sold on to the actual traveller.

29By contrast, the defendant Member States (19) accentuate the need to ensure achievement of the aims pursued by the margin scheme.

30As regards the Commission’s main linguistic point, they stress that the wording used in one language version of an EU provision cannot serve as the sole basis for its interpretation or be made to override the other language versions. Where there is divergence between language versions, the provision must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part. (20) Such a teleological approach has been taken by the Court to hold that the margin scheme applies to a hotelier who offers his customers a package including accommodation, return transport and a coach excursion, the transport services being bought in from third parties, even though he is not, formally speaking, a travel agent or tour operator. (21) It should likewise be applied here to ensure that the aims of the scheme are correctly achieved.

31The absurdities which the Commission sees in the use of certain phrases are, in the Member States’ view, inconclusive. The English version of the provisions (from which all the other ‘customer’ versions derive) does not speak of travel agents who deal with their customers in their own name but who deal with customers (not necessarily directly their own) in their own name. There is thus no obvious redundancy in such wording – which is, in any event, retained by the Commission in its proposed amendment. However, since it is specified that the margin scheme is not to apply to travel agents who act solely as intermediaries, the words ‘in their own name’ could be redundant on any interpretation. And, as the Court has held, the words ‘to be paid by the traveller’ cannot be interpreted literally but may include payments by third parties. (22)

32The defendant Member States point out also that the Court has consistently held that the requirement for strict interpretation of exceptions to the principles of the VAT system does not mean that the terms used should be construed in such a way as to deprive exceptions of their intended effect, and that any interpretation must be consistent with the objectives pursued and comply with the principle of fiscal neutrality. (23)

33The Commission’s reference to Case C-304/05 Commission v Spain, (24) the Member States submit, is not relevant. That case concerned a provision of the Sixth Directive whose interpretation was clear from its wording. Here, it is quite evident that the wording is capable of giving rise to different interpretations, and has indeed done so.

Assessment

34In these proceedings, the Court finds itself in an invidious position. No consistent pattern can be seen in the way in which the existing language versions of Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112 use the words ‘customer’ and ‘traveller’ (neither of which is defined). A Commission proposal to rectify the situation (not itself a model of linguistic consistency) has failed to meet with agreement in the Council, to which it was submitted more than a decade ago. There would appear to be, if not stalemate, at least insufficient shared willingness to determine a uniform approach. There are two, mutually incoherent, interpretations, in favour of each of which arguments can be advanced. Eight Member States interpret the provisions in one way (formerly at least 13 did so), while the remainder – none of which has sought to intervene in order to submit its own point of view – interpret them in the other, without either approach being necessarily related to whether, in the relevant languages, Directive 2006/112 uses the word ‘traveller’ or ‘customer’.

35It is hard to avoid the impression that the Court is being called upon to decide a matter of VAT policy (and of legislative drafting) which has proved beyond the capabilities or the willingness of the Member States and the legislature.

36Be that as it may, the Court must provide a legal interpretation of the current text which will determine whether the Commission’s actions are (as regards the issue with which this Opinion is concerned) well-founded or not.

37In that context, the number of Member States which have adopted one approach or the other cannot in my view be a factor of any legal relevance to the Court’s analysis (even if it might be a political consideration of some relevance for the legislature). Whatever the outcome of that analysis, a significant number of Member States will be called upon to amend their legislation. By the same token, it seems to me that little persuasive value can be attached to any practical difficulties which might arise for travel agents under either interpretation if it were applied uniformly – other, of course, than those which the margin scheme is specifically designed to avert. Neither approach is likely to be perfect in practice but, if at least eight (previously, at least 13) Member States have been able to implement the provisions in a particular way over a significant period, any difficulties entailed by that implementation (taken in isolation, rather than as part of an internally conflicting whole) appear unlikely to be decisive.

38If the provisions governing the margin scheme were unequivocal, their clear meaning should in principle prevail, even if that were to weaken to some extent the achievement of the aims of the margin scheme. In my view, however, they leave room for interpretation, and the Court must have regard to the purpose and general framework of that scheme and to its own previous rulings in that context. (25)

39It seems unprofitable to seek an answer though detailed analysis of the haphazard way in which the terms ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’ or their equivalents are now used in the different language versions of Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112. The Commission stresses that the word ‘customer’ was used only once in only one of the six original language versions of Article 26 of the Sixth Directive and has explained how that anomaly arose and was subsequently propagated. It is convinced – and I see no need to cast doubt on that conviction – that the Council’s intention was to use the word ‘traveller’ throughout.

40However, I do not think one can necessarily infer, from an intention to use the word ‘traveller’ consistently, a concomitant intention to confine application of the margin scheme to situations in which the travel agent deals directly with the physical person who is going to consume or enjoy the services provided.

41It is true that, taking the word at its face value, it is difficult to interpret ‘traveller’ as including ‘another travel agent’. However, a contextual reading which has regard to the purpose and general scheme of the provisions may lead to a broader interpretation.

42On the one hand, the word ‘traveller’ cannot be given a rigorously literal interpretation in the context of the margin scheme. For Robert Louis Stevenson, to travel hopefully may have been a better thing than to arrive, (26) but he might have felt less hopeful had he been facing delayed flights, cramped seating in crowded aircraft or tasteless food on tiny plastic trays. For many if not most modern holidaymakers, the focus has shifted: it is the destination rather than the voyage which counts, (27) and one may book a resort holiday or other accommodation through a travel agent while arranging one’s own means of arrival. The latter was, specifically, the case with the ‘motoring holidays’ in Van Ginkel, (28) which the Court held to fall within the margin scheme. Moreover, it is clear that one person may buy a travel package to be used by another, but it would be surprising if the VAT treatment of the purchase were to depend on whether the purchaser was the actual traveller or a relative, holiday companion etc. Nor indeed is there any reason why a holiday booked through a travel agent should involve any significant travel at all: it might be more convenient (or perhaps cheaper, in the case of promotional offers) to book an inclusive stay at a spa resort in one’s own home town through a travel agent rather than directly.(29) For the purposes of the margin scheme, therefore, the ‘traveller’ is not necessarily one who ‘travels’, and actual ‘travel facilities’ or an actual ‘journey’ need not form part of the package in respect of which the travel agent is required to apply the scheme.

43On the other hand, without there being any need to draw specific conclusions from the ways in which ‘customer’ or its equivalent has been used in different language versions, the mere fact that the term was allowed to insinuate itself into the legislation and there to multiply tends to belie the view that the legislature has ever attached decisive importance to the use of the word ‘traveller’. It may be noted, moreover, that the increasing use of the term ‘customer’ in the legislative provisions has accompanied the increasing frequency of sales of holiday or travel packages between travel agents.

44It seems to me, therefore, that a legislative intention to use a single term to designate the person buying travel, accommodation or similar services from a travel agent – and ‘traveller’ was a convenient term to use – does not require the meaning of that term to be confined to a particularly narrow category of such persons.

45Nor, in any event, does the Commission itself seek to interpret ‘traveller’ literally: it includes under the term, for example, a business entity which buys services for the use of its employees, the only condition being in its view that the package must not be sold on to whoever is the final consumer.

46I thus cannot regard the text of the provisions governing the margin scheme as unequivocal, even on the assumption that the original intention was to use the term ‘traveller’ – which is itself not free from ambiguity – throughout.

47That being so, the term may in my view be interpreted so as to extend to customers other than the physical persons who actually enjoy the travel or holiday services purchased from a travel agent (or, as the Commission suggests, than those who buy for the benefit of such persons), and indeed so as to include other travel agents who will then sell the services on. Given the uncertainty as between language versions, it should be so interpreted if that is required by the purpose and general framework of the margin scheme. The Court has already, in the light of such a requirement, interpreted ‘travel agent’ to include a hotelier offering an accommodation package which comprises transport and excursions and a trader organising language and study trips abroad. (30) A further parallel can be drawn with the Court’s interpretation of the phrase ‘persons taking part in sport’ – which, as it acknowledged, refers in normal usage only to natural persons – as capable of including corporate persons and unincorporated associations for the purposes of Article 13A(1)(m) of the Sixth Directive (now Article 132(1)(m) of Directive 2006/112). (31)

48Crucially, to exclude the sale of travel or holiday packages by a travel agent or tour operator to another travel agent who will sell it on from the application of the margin scheme would run directly counter to the two aims which – as is common ground in these proceedings – the scheme was intended to achieve.

49The Court has recognised the aim of adapting the normal rules on place of taxation, taxable amount and deduction of input tax to take account of the multiplicity of services in a travel or holiday package and of places in which they are provided, which entail practical difficulties for travel agents and tour operators of such a nature as to obstruct their operations. (32) When travel agent A puts together a package comprising, say, a coach tour of several Member States, with accommodation, restaurant meals and visits to tourist attractions in each of them, and sells that package to travel agent B, who sells it on to the natural persons who will participate in the tour, the practical difficulties entailed are all encountered by A, not by B. Even if the place of supply of A’s sale to B is not in the Member State in which B is established, B’s difficulties are in principle no greater than those involved in a simple cross-border supply – namely, the need to obtain a refund or deduction of input tax paid on a transaction in another Member State. B’s situation alone does not necessarily justify application of a special margin scheme. A, by contrast, has to deal with input tax on different services at different rates in different Member States – the very situation which the margin scheme is designed to alleviate. Yet under the traveller approach advocated by the Commission in the present proceedings it is B alone who will benefit from the scheme, while A will not.

50Comparable considerations apply in relation to the second aim, that of ensuring that VAT revenue is correctly allocated to the Member State in which the relevant service is in fact provided and received. If, in the above example, the margin scheme is not applied to A’s sale to B, A will recover the amounts of VAT charged on services provided to and enjoyed by the tourists in the Member States visited, a process which is likely to result in a net payment to him of much or all of those amounts (33) and a loss of VAT revenue in those Member States. Although harmonised at EU level, VAT is a national tax, levied in each Member State at its own rates and under its own detailed rules. It is classified in Article 1(2) of Directive 2006/112 as ‘a general tax on consumption’. Although Title V (Articles 31 to 61) of Directive 2006/112 lays down particular rules as regards the place of supply where there is a cross-border element, it is inherent in the idea of a tax on consumption that it should crystallise at the time and place of actual consumption (that is to say, for a non-cumulative multistage tax like VAT, final consumption at the end of the chain of supply). In the situation in issue, the relevant services are physically both supplied and consumed in the same Member State. The cross-border element is, as regards those services, essentially artificial – the supply in A’s Member State is of A’s services, not of those of the service providers in the Member States visited. It would therefore run counter not only to the aims of the margin scheme but also to a fundamental principle of the common VAT system which that scheme is designed to uphold if revenue derived from consumption in one Member State were to accrue to the benefit of another Member State in which none of the services directly giving rise to that consumption were provided.

51It is true that derogations from the general regime should be interpreted strictly but, as the Member States have pointed out, that does not mean that the terms used should be construed in such a way as to deprive them of their intended effect. Here, the Commission’s proposed interpretation would do just that. (34)

52On that basis, I am compelled to conclude not only that the customer approach is better suited than the traveller approach to achieve the aims of the margin scheme, but also that the latter actually frustrates those aims in situations of the kind in which the Commission argues that it should be applied. Such a conclusion seems to me sufficient to justify dismissing the Commission’s actions in all these cases (subject to the proviso that, in Case C-189/11 Commission v Spain, there are three further issues to determine).

53That said, it may be helpful, briefly, to mention any other major points made by the defendant Member States which also support that view and to respond to certain arguments raised by the Commission.

54First, the Member States stress the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the VAT system, in the sense that VAT should not be applied in a way which distorts competition between suppliers. (35) They point out that, because (as I have explained in points 49 and 50 above) the practical and administrative difficulties involved in putting a travel package together are not alleviated by the Commission’s interpretation where the package is sold to another travel agent, that interpretation favours larger tour operators and travel agencies over smaller ones, which are less likely to have the necessary resources to cope with those difficulties. The latter are therefore less able to put packages together for sale to other travel agents. The Commission’s interpretation unjustifiably involves, moreover, treating a taxable person’s supplies differently for VAT purposes on the basis of the identity of his customer rather than on any criterion linked to the supply or the supplier.

55I agree with that assessment. The criterion of size will give larger agencies an advantage over smaller agencies also in other ways, but application of the VAT rules should not add further discrimination. It is also true that the principle of neutrality, in this sense, is not a rule of primary law which can condition the validity of a provision, but a principle of interpretation, to be applied concurrently with other such principles. (36) Here, however, its application buttresses the view which I have reached on the basis of the principle which requires a provision whose meaning is not clear (particularly where there are conflicting language versions) to be interpreted in the light of the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part.

56Second, the Commission has argued that the phrase ‘in their own name’ in Article 306 of Directive 2006/112 is redundant if the customer approach is adopted, since travel agents always deal with their customers in their own name (were that not so, the persons with whom they were dealing would not be their customers).

57That argument seems weak. While it is true that a word or phrase used in legislation should in principle be presumed to serve its own intended purpose, I cannot accept that an interpretation which does no more than avoid redundancy should be made to prevail over one which much more clearly serves the intended purpose of the body of rules as a whole. Redundancy is not unknown in legislation. Here, the phrase ‘in their own name’ may easily be seen as simply an anticipation of the exclusion, in the following sentence, of travel agents acting solely as intermediaries. I note, moreover, that the Commission’s 2002 proposal to amend Article 26 of the Sixth Directive, which is supposed to implement the customer approach, continues to use the words ‘where the travel agents deal with customers in their own name’ – thus perpetuating the alleged redundancy.

58Third, the Commission submits that the definition of ‘margin’ in Article 308 of Directive 2006/112 is unworkable if the customer approach is taken. If travel agent A puts together a package and sells it to travel agent B who sells it to a traveller, how can A’s margin be the difference between the VAT-exclusive price paid by the traveller and the actual cost to A of the goods and services provided by other taxable persons for the direct benefit of the traveller, when the price paid by the customer includes not only A’s margin but also B’s margin?

59If, as the legislation stands, the word ‘traveller’ should, as I believe, be construed broadly to include customers of different kinds, in particular other travel agents, the problem disappears. (37) Moreover, as the Member States have pointed out, the words ‘to be paid by the traveller’ cannot be interpreted literally in that context. (38)

60Fourth, the Commission refers to Case C‑204/03 Commission v Spain, (39) to the effect that Member States may not disregard express provisions of the VAT directives in order to produce a result more closely in line with the overall aims of that legislation.

61Here again, I agree with the Member States that the case-law does not preclude an interpretation which produces such a result unless it runs counter to a clear and unequivocal provision. The provisions in issue in the present proceedings are, as has been amply demonstrated, not unequivocal.

62Finally, however, it must be acknowledged that the customer approach is not a panacea for all possible imperfections in the margin scheme. Its most salient drawback is set out by the Commission in the explanatory memorandum to its proposed amendments to the Sixth Directive:

‘Several Member States also raised the issue of business trips and the problem this causes to companies, who are, in effect, final consumers of travel packages, as they will be unable, under the proposed new provisions of Article 26, to deduct the residual input VAT. If they order a travel package from a travel agent, they will [be] charged a price VAT included, and therefore this company will not be able to deduct this amount of VAT although this travel package is used for business purposes. This will cause residual VAT in the intermediary consumption stage, which is contrary to the basic principle of neutrality of the Community VAT system.’ (40)

63Although acknowledged, that issue is not addressed in the proposed amendment. In the present proceedings, the Commission puts forward an interpretation under which the term ‘traveller’ would include companies purchasing business trips – thus, in effect, applying the customer approach to that extent (and, in so doing, embedding residual VAT at an intermediary stage).

64The problem could be averted only if the traveller approach were adopted in its strictest interpretation, so as to apply the margin scheme only where the travel agent’s customer was a natural person consuming the services sold. Where the customer was a taxable legal person, the normal regime would apply and, if the services acquired were used for strictly business purposes and constituted cost components of the business’s taxable outputs, all the VAT on those services, in addition to that on the travel agent’s margin, could be deducted from the tax on those outputs and the principle of VAT neutrality for taxable persons would be respected.

65That is not, however, the interpretation which the Commission proposes for the traveller approach. Moreover, the aims of the margin scheme are, as is agreed, specifically to simplify procedures and to ensure correct allocation of VAT revenue. There is no suggestion that it was intended also to guarantee full deductibility of input tax on travel services used for taxable business purposes, even if that would have been a desirable aim.

66The existence of the issue which I have described does not, therefore, lead me to revise my conclusion that the customer approach should apply on a correct interpretation of the margin scheme, with the result that the Commission’s actions should be dismissed in so far as they seek declarations to the effect that, by permitting travel agents to apply the margin scheme to the provision of travel services to persons other than travellers, the Member States have failed to fulfil their obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112.

Costs

67Under Article 138(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. All the defendant Member States have applied for costs. Under Article 140(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Member States which intervene in proceedings are to bear their own costs.

Conclusion

68In the light of all the above considerations, I am of the opinion that – subject to the analysis and conclusions which I set out in my separate Opinion in Case C-189/11 concerning the remaining complaints against the Kingdom of Spain – the Court should:

– dismiss the actions brought by the Commission,

– order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Member States as defendants, and

– order the Member States to bear the costs which they have incurred as interveners.

Annex I

Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112 (emphasis added)

‘Article 306

1. Member States shall apply a special VAT scheme, in accordance with this Chapter, to transactions carried out by travel agents who deal with customers in their own name and use supplies of goods or services provided by other taxable persons, in the provision of travel facilities.

This special scheme shall not apply to travel agents where they act solely as intermediaries and to whom point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 [(41)] applies for the purposes of calculating the taxable amount.

2. For the purposes of this Chapter, tour operators shall be regarded as travel agents.

Article 307

Transactions made, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 306, by the travel agent in respect of a journey shall be regarded as a single service supplied by the travel agent to the traveller.

The single service shall be taxable in the Member State in which the travel agent has established his business or has a fixed establishment from which the travel agent has carried out the supply of services.

Article 308

The taxable amount and the price exclusive of VAT, within the meaning of point (8) of Article 226, in respect of the single service provided by the travel agent shall be the travel agent’s margin, that is to say, the difference between the total amount, exclusive of VAT, to be paid by the traveller and the actual cost to the travel agent of supplies of goods or services provided by other taxable persons, where those transactions are for the direct benefit of the traveller.

Article 309

If transactions entrusted by the travel agent to other taxable persons are performed by such persons outside the Community, the supply of services carried out by the travel agent shall be treated as an intermediary activity exempted pursuant to Article 153.

If the transactions are performed both inside and outside the Community, only that part of the travel agent’s service relating to transactions outside the Community may be exempted.

Article 310

VAT charged to the travel agent by other taxable persons in respect of transactions which are referred to in Article 307 and which are for the direct benefit of the traveller shall not be deductible or refundable in any Member State.’

Annex II

Article 26 of the Sixth Directive (emphasis added)

‘Special scheme for travel agents

1. Member States shall apply value added tax to the operations of travel agents in accordance with the provisions of this Article, where the travel agents deal with customers in their own name and use the supplies and services of other taxable persons in the provision of travel facilities. This Article shall not apply to travel agents who are acting only as intermediaries and accounting for tax in accordance with Article 11A(3)(c). [(42)] In this Article travel agents include tour operators.

2. All transactions performed by the travel agent in respect of a journey shall be treated as a single service supplied by the travel agent to the traveller. It shall be taxable in the Member State in which the travel agent has established his business or has a fixed establishment from which the travel agent has provided the services. The taxable amount and the price exclusive of tax, within the meaning of Article 22(3)(b), in respect of this service shall be the travel agent’s margin, that is to say, the difference between the total amount to be paid by the traveller, exclusive of value added tax, and the actual cost to the travel agent of supplies and services provided by other taxable persons where these transactions are for the direct benefit of the traveller.

3. If transactions entrusted by the travel agent to other taxable persons are performed by such persons outside the Community, the travel agent’s service shall be treated as an exempted intermediary activity under Article 15(14). Where these transactions are performed both inside and outside the Community, only that part of the travel agent’s service relating to transactions outside the Community may be exempted.

4. Tax charged to the travel agent by other taxable persons on the transactions described in paragraph 2 which are for the direct benefit of the traveller, shall not be eligible for deduction or refund in any Member State.’

Annex III

Terminology used in the different language versions

Sixth Directive

BG (43)

CS

DA

DE

Article 26(1)

получател (recipient, beneficiary)

zákazník (customer)

rejsende (traveller)

Reisender (traveller)

Article 26(2), first sentence

пътуващо лице (traveller)

Article 26(2), third sentence

пътуващо лице/турист

(traveller/ tourist)

Article 26(4)

Турист

(tourist)

Directive 2006/112

BG

CS

DA

DE

Article 306

клиент

(customer)

cestující

(traveller)

rejsende (traveller)

Reisender (traveller)

Article 307

пътуващо лице (traveller)

Article 308

Article 310

Sixth Directive

EL

EN

ES

ET

Article 26(1)

ταξιδιώτης (traveller)

customer

viagero (traveller)

klient (customer)

Article 26(2), first sentence

traveller

reisija (traveller)

Article 26(2), third sentence

Article 26(4)

Directive 2006/112

EL

EN

ES

ET

Article 306

ταξιδιώτης (traveller)

customer

viagero (traveller)

reisija (traveller)

Article 307

traveller

Article 308

Article 310

Sixth Directive

FI

FR

HU

IT

Article 26(1)

matkustaja (traveller)

voyageur (traveller)

utas (traveller)

viaggiatore (traveller)

Article 26(2), first sentence

Article 26(2), third sentence

Article 26(4)

Directive 2006/112

FI

FR

HU

IT

Article 306

asiakas (customer)

voyageur (traveller)

utas (traveller)

viaggiatore (traveller)

Article 307

Article 308

asiakas (customer)

matkustaja (traveller)

utazó (traveller)

Article 310

matkustaja (traveller)

utas (traveller)

Sixth Directive

LT

LV

MT

NL

Article 26(1)

klientas (customer)

klients (customer)

klienti (customer)

reiziger (traveller)

Article 26(2), first sentence

keleivis (traveller)

ceļotājs (traveller)

vjaġġatur (traveller)

Article 26(2), third sentence

Article 26(4)

Directive 2006/112

LT

LV

MT

NL

Article 306

keleivis (traveller)

ceļotājs (traveller)

konsumaturi (consumer)

reiziger (traveller)

Article 307

vjaġġatur (traveller)

Article 308

Article 310

Sixth Directive

PL

PT

RO (44)

SK

Article 26(1)

klient (customer)

cliente (customer)

client

(customer)

zákazník (customer)

Article 26(2), first sentence

podróżny (traveller)

viajante (traveller)

cālātor (traveller)

turista (tourist)

Article 26(2), third sentence

Article 26(4)

cestujúci (traveller)

Directive 2006/112

PL

PT

RO

SK

Article 306

nabywca (acquirer)

cliente (customer)

client (customer)

zákazník (customer)

Article 307

turysta (tourist)

Article 308

Article 310

Sixth Directive

SL

SV

Article 26(1)

naročniki (customer)

kunder (customers)

Article 26(2), first sentence

potnik (traveller)

resande (traveller)

Article 26(2), third sentence

Article 26(4)

Directive 2006/112

SL

SV

Article 306

potnik (traveller)

kunder (customers)

Article 307

resande (traveller)

Article 308

Article 310

Notes

(1) Original language: English.

(2) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1; ‘Directive 2006/112’).

(3) Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59). Article 1 states its purpose as being ‘to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to packages sold or offered for sale in the territory of the Community’.

(4) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1; ‘the Sixth Directive’). Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112 merely recast the structure and wording of Article 26 of the Sixth Directive, without, in principle, bringing about any material change (see recital 3 in the preamble to Directive 2006/112).

(5) Under the provisions of, now, Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 23), which repealed and replaced Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11).

(6) Although the Commission’s definition of ‘traveller’ is in fact somewhat looser than that – see point 28 below.

(7) The Commission explained at the hearing that the text of the Sixth Directive was debated and agreed within the Council in its French version, which was intended to serve as the basis for all other languages; however, contrary to that intention, the final English text was in fact based on a parallel version in English, which had not been the basis of discussions. It cannot, however, be denied that the text was adopted in all six languages, each version being equally authentic.

(8) I reproduce the monolingual text of Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112 in Annex I to this Opinion, and of Article 26 of the Sixth Directive in Annex II. In both cases, I italicise the word ‘traveller’ or ‘customer’, as the case may be, or its equivalent, on each occurrence. In Annex III, I set out a table which indicates the word used in each provision, in each of the different language versions. At the hearing, the Commission stated that the Council had determined the final text in each language version of Directive 2006/112, without the Commission being in a position to react to any changes.

(9) Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the special scheme for travel agents (COM(2002) 64 final).

(10) That was, in any event, the intention. In fact, at least the French, Greek, Italian and Swedish versions of the proposed new provisions all seem to have retained the word ‘traveller’ in at least one instance.

(11) At point 4.1.2.1.

(12) Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia and the United Kingdom. The Netherlands amended its legislation at a later stage (from 1 April 2012) and parallel proceedings which had been brought against that Member State (Case C-473/11) were withdrawn.

(13) See Commission press releases IP/08/333 and IP/11/76.

(14) The aim of simplifying procedure for travel agents has, moreover, been repeatedly stressed by the Court (see, for example, Case C-31/10 Minerva Kulturreisen [2010] ECR I‑12889, paragraphs 17 and 18 and case-law cited). The aim of correct allocation of tax yield was stressed by Advocate General Tizzano in his Opinion in First Choice Holidays (Case C-149/01 [2003] ECR I‑6289, point 25, footnote 13).

(15) See, however, point 28 below.

(16) See, for a recent example, Case C-360/11 Commission v Spain [2013] ECR I-0000, paragraph 18 and case-law cited.

(17) See Article 1(2) of Directive 2006/112.

(18) Case C-204/03 Commission v Spain [2005] ECR I‑8359, paragraph 28 and case-law cited.

(19) I do not think it useful here to attribute individual arguments – of which what follows is, in any event, only a summary – to individual Member States.

(20) See, for example, Case C-41/09 Commission v Netherlands [2011] ECR I‑831, paragraph 44 and case-law cited. See also Case C‑296/95 EMU Tabac and Others [1998] ECR I‑1605, paragraph 36.

(21) Joined Cases C-308/96 and C-94/97 Madgett and Baldwin [1998] ECR I‑6229, paragraphs 18 to 27. See also Case C-200/04 iSt [2005] ECR I‑8691, paragraph 22 et seq.

(22) First Choice Holidays, cited in footnote 14, paragraph 28 of the judgment.

(23) See, for a very recent example with regard to exemptions, Case C-91/12 PCF Clinic AB [2013] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 23.

(24) Cited in footnote 18; see, in particular, paragraph 25.

(25) See the case-law cited in footnote 20 above.

(26) Virginibus puerisque, iv, El Dorado (1881).

(27) There are cases of course in which the voyage or journey itself, or part of it, is the aim (certain cruises, for example, or legendary train journeys such as the Orient Express), and others in which the transport itself is the only service purchased from the travel agent (notably, perhaps, in the case of business travel). However, a significant part of travel agency business involves packages of which the services available at the destination are the central component, transport to and from that destination being simply an inevitable adjunct.

(28) Case C‑163/91 [1992] ECR I‑5723.

(29) In Minerva Kulturreisen, cited in footnote 14, the Court did rule that the margin scheme was not to apply to the sale by a travel agent of opera tickets in isolation ‘without provision of a travel service’, but it made clear that travel services included accommodation (see paragraphs 21 to 28 of the judgment).

(30) See, respectively, Madgett and Baldwin and iSt, both cited in footnote 21.

(31) Case C-253/07 Canterbury Hockey Club and Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club [2008] ECR I‑7821, paragraph 26 et seq. I note that, in that case, the Commission had submitted that the provision was to be interpreted ‘not literally, but so as to ensure the effective application of the exemption for which it provides, on the basis of the supply of services in question and that, therefore, regard must be had not only to the formal, legal recipient of that supply, but also to its material recipient or effective beneficiary’ (see paragraph 25 of the judgment).

(32) See the case-law cited in footnote 14 above.

(33) That would not be the case only if A were both registered for VAT in each of those Member States and made supplies there on which the output VAT exceeded all his input VAT there. Even then, however, there would be a flow of VAT revenue from the Member States in which the services were in fact provided and enjoyed to the Member State in which A was established, which would collect the output tax on his sale to B.

(34) See point 32 above.

(35) For the other sense of fiscal neutrality in the context of VAT, see footnote 40 below.

(36) See Case C‑44/11 Deutsche Bank [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 45.

(37) The difficulty is addressed in the Commission’s proposed amendments to Article 26 of the Sixth Directive, essentially by replacing the word ‘traveller’ by ‘customer’ throughout Article 26(3) (corresponding to the last sentence of Article 26(2) in the unamended version; there are also other changes, but they have no particular bearing on the point under discussion). That, it seems to me, demonstrates the largely contrived nature of the objection.

(38) See point 31 above.

(39) Cited in footnote 18 above. The Commission cites also Case C‑269/00 Seeling [2003] ECR I‑4101, paragraph 54.

(40) Document cited in footnote 9, point 2, penultimate paragraph. The principle of neutrality referred to here is that VAT should be neutral in its effect on taxable persons, who should not themselves bear the burden of the tax.

(41) Point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 concerns the use of a suspense account for repayment of expenditure in the name and for the account of a purchaser or customer.

(42) Article 11A(3)(c) was the predecessor to point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79.

(43) The Sixth Directive having been repealed before Bulgaria’s accession to the EU, the Bulgarian version is not an official translation.

(44) The Sixth Directive having been repealed before Romania’s accession to the EU, the Romanian version is not an official translation.