C-96/91 Commission v Spain

Judgment of the Court of 9 June 1992. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain. - Exemption from and remission of turnover tax in international travel. - Case C-96/91. European Court reports 1992 Page I-03789

Summary Parties Grounds Decision on costs Operative part

++++

Tax provisions ° Harmonization of laws ° Exemptions from turnover tax and excise duty ° Goods carried in travellers' personal luggage ° Remission of value added tax on exportation ° Community rules requiring production of an invoice or a document in lieu thereof ° National rules requiring production of a special document ° Not permissible

(Council Directives 69/169, Art. 6(4) and 77/388, Art. 22(8))

A Member State which, for the purpose of remission of value added tax on goods being exported in travellers' personal luggage, exclusively requires compulsory presentation of a document known as a "special invoice" in an official standard form, thereby preventing the exercise of that right by travellers who are in possession of an ordinary invoice which duly complies with Spanish legislation and with the Sixth Council Directive ° 77/388 ° on turnover taxes fails to fulfil its obligations under Directive 69/169 relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel.

On the one hand, in the field covered by Directive 69/169, the Member States, which retain only the limited powers granted them by the actual provisions of the directive, cannot rely on any of its provisions in order to require a special document as evidence, whereas Article 6(4) of the directive demands only the production of an invoice or other document in lieu thereof. On the other hand any such requirement exceeds the limits of what is authorized by Article 22(8) of the aforesaid Sixth Directive as regards the need to ensure that the tax is correctly levied, and is of such a nature as to make the exercise of the right to remission of tax very difficult and to give rise to double taxation, whereas the objective of the relevant provisions is precisely to avoid double taxation.

In Case C-96/91,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by exclusively requiring compulsory presentation of a document known as a "special invoice" in an official standard form in order to obtain the remission of value added tax in international travel, thereby preventing the exercise of that right by travellers who are in possession of an ordinary invoice which duly complies with the Spanish legislation and with the Sixth Council Directive ° 77/388/EEC ° of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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 Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 69/169/EEC of 28 May 1969 on the harmonization of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 232),

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Daniel Calleja y Crespo, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Roberto Hayder, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

and

Kingdom of Spain, represented by Alberto José Navarro Gonzalez, Director-General for Community Legal and Institutional Coordination, and Gloria Calvo Diaz, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel-Servais,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by exclusively requiring compulsory presentation of a document known as a "special invoice" in an official standard form in order to obtain the remission of value added tax in international travel, thereby preventing the exercise of that right by travellers who are in possession of an ordinary invoice which duly complies with the Spanish legislation and with the Sixth Council Directive ° 77/388/EEC ° of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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 Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 69/169/EEC of 28 May 1969 on the harmonization of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 232),

THE COURT,

composed of: R. Joliet, President of Chamber, acting as President, F. Grévisse and P.J.G. Kapteyn (Presidents of Chambers), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, M. Diez de Velasco and M. Zuleeg, Judges,

Advocate General: C. Gulmann,

Registrar: D. Triantafyllou, Administrator,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 7 April 1992,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 May 1992,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 20 March 1991, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that, by exclusively requiring compulsory presentation of a document known as a "special invoice" in an official standard form in order to obtain the remission of value added tax (hereinafter "VAT") in international travel, thereby preventing the exercise of that right by travellers who are in possession of an ordinary invoice which duly complies with the Spanish legislation and with the Sixth Council Directive ° 77/388/EEC ° of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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 Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 69/169/EEC of 28 May 1969 on the harmonization of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 232) (hereinafter "the Directive").

2The Commission claims that the obligation thus imposed by the Spanish rules, contained in Articles 15 and 86 of Royal Decree 2028/85 of 30 October 1985, the latter article having been amended by Article 6 of Royal Decree 2105/86 of 25 September 1986, and in the Ministerial Decree of 20 December 1985, as amended by the Ministerial Decree of 5 December 1986, is contrary to the provisions of Article 6 of the Directive, as amended by the Second Council Directive ° 72/230/EEC ° of 12 June 1972 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 565), the Third Council Directive ° 78/1032/EEC ° of 19 December 1978 (OJ 1978 L 366, p. 28) and Council Directive 85/348/EEC of 8 July 1985 (OJ 1985 L 183, p. 24).

3Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the procedure and the pleas in law and arguments of the parties, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.

4It should be noted at the outset that Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 69/169 provide for the exemption of VAT on goods imported in travellers' personal luggage provided that such importation is not commercial in nature and that the value of the goods does not exceed certain limits, which differ according to whether travel is between third countries and the Community or between Member States. Article 6 of the Directive required Member States to take appropriate measures to ensure that tax remission on exportation was not granted to those benefiting from an exemption on importation.

5Because of the technical difficulties which arose from application of Article 6, and in order to avoid instances of double taxation, tax-remission arrangements were gradually laid down for exportation at the retail stage. Thus Article 4 of the above-mentioned Directive 72/230 provides that under certain conditions Member States may as regards sale at the retail trade stage authorize the remission of turnover tax on goods carried in the personal luggage of travellers leaving a Member State. Article 3 of Directive 78/1032 subsequently made this no longer an option but binding on the Member States.

6In the current version of the Directive, resulting from the abovementioned texts and an additional amendment under Article 1(3) of Directive 85/348, Article 6 comprises five paragraphs, three of which contain the following provisions:

"2. Without prejudice to rules relating to sales made at airport shops under customs control and on board aircraft, Member States may, as regards sale at the retail trade stage, authorize in the cases and under the conditions provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4 the remission of turnover tax on goods carried in the personal luggage of travellers leaving a Member State. No remission may be granted in respect of excise duty.

3. As regards travellers whose domicile or habitual residence is situated outside the Community each Member State may set limits and lay down conditions of application in respect of tax remission.

As regards travellers whose domicile, habitual residence or place of work is situated in a Member State, there may be remission of tax only in respect of items the individual value of which, inclusive of tax, exceeds the amount specified in Article 2(1).

Member States may exclude their residents from the benefit of this tax remission.

4. Remission of tax shall be subject:

(a) in the cases referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 3, to production of a copy of the invoice or other document in lieu thereof, endorsed by the customs of the exporting Member States to certify exportation of the goods;

(b) in the cases referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, to production of a copy of the invoice or other document in lieu thereof, endorsed by the customs of the Member State where final importation takes place or by another authority of that Member State competent in matters of turnover tax proving that the turnover tax has been or will be applied."

7The Commission claims that the Spanish rules making remission of VAT under the scheme applicable to travellers subject to the use of a special document on an official standard form is contrary to the rule set out in Article 6(4) of the Directive, which makes tax remission subject merely to "production of a copy of the invoice or other document in lieu thereof". The Commission considers that those rules restrict, contrary to the purpose of the Directive, the exercise of a right provided by the Community legislature, that they are disproportionate to the objective they seek to achieve and that their possible consequences include the risk of double taxation within the territory of the Community.

8The Kingdom of Spain contends that the Sixth Directive, which it acknowledges to be of fundamental importance in terms of the harmonization of the provisions covering value added tax, gives Member States the power to lay down certain rules which are necessary to check that the tax is levied, concerning in particular the details of the invoicing. It considers that the rules impugned by the Commission, which are intended solely to make it easier to monitor the conditions required by the Directive for entitlement to reimbursement, do not exceed the limits thus established by Community law and are in no way in breach of the obligation the Directive imposes on the Member States in terms of the result to be achieved.

9That argument cannot be upheld.

10As the Court has consistently held, in the field covered by the Directive, the Member States retain only the limited powers granted them by the actual provisions of the Directive and of those directives amending it (Case 158/80 REWE [1981] ECR 1805, at paragraph 36, Case 278/82 REWE [1984] ECR 721, at paragraph 31, Case C-158/88 Commission v Ireland [1990] ECR I-2367, at paragraph 7, and Case 208/88 Commission v Denmark [1990] ECR I-4445, at paragraph 7).

11The Directive does not contain any provision entitling Member States to require, for the remission of tax on goods carried in travellers' personal luggage, a special supporting document, whilst Article 6(4), cited above, requires only production of an invoice or other document in lieu thereof. That provision, which sets out the technical details for the exercise of the right to remission of tax, clearly provides that travellers have two ways of claiming reimbursement of the tax. It cannot therefore be interpreted as allowing Member States an option to limit exercise of that right only to those in possession of a special invoice.

12It is true that Article 22 of the Sixth Directive, concerning obligations of taxable persons fpr the purposes of VAT under the internal system and relating, inter alia, to the details of invoicing, contains a provision authorizing Member States to impose obligations not provided for by the Directive. Paragraph 8 of that article states "Member States may impose other obligations which they deem necessary for the correct levying and collection of the tax and for the prevention of fraud". However, as specified by the Court in a judgment cited by both parties, the exercise of that power must be limited to what is necessary to ensure the correct levying of value added tax and permit supervision by the tax authorities and the detailed requirements on the invoice must not render the exercise of the right to deduction practically impossible or excessively difficult (Joined Cases 123 and 330/87 Léa Jeunehomme [1988] ECR 4517, at paragraphs 15, 16 and 17).

13In this case, the requirement to produce a special invoice in order to obtain the tax remission provided for under Article 6 of the Directive is not only contrary to the provisions of that article, for the reasons set out at paragraph 11 of this judgment. It also exceeds what is necessary to ensure that the tax is correctly levied, and is of such a nature as to make the exercise of the right to remission very difficult and to give rise to double taxation although the objective of the relevant provisions is precisely to avoid that.

14On the one hand, as the Commission has rightly pointed out, the combination of the invoicing provisions under the general system of VAT and those requiring a customs endorsement to obtain reimbursement of tax under the arrangements applying to travellers makes it possible for the competent authorities to achieve effective supervision of the manner in which travellers exercise their right to remission, without any need to require a special document as evidence. The first of those provisions provides, indeed, that all invoices must bear the majority of the details listed on that special document, with the exception of those referring to the destination of the goods purchased and their presentation to the customs authorities. The second series of provisions specifically requires the traveller to present the purchased goods either to the customs authorities of the exporting State if the traveller' s residence is in a third country, or to the customs authorities of the importing State if he resides in a Member State of the Community, in order to obtain the endorsement necessary for remission of the tax.

15On the other hand, it is apparent from the terms of the preamble to Directive 78/1032, that Article 6 of the Directive was amended with the aim of harmonizing the rules governing tax remission at the retail stage in order to prevent instances of double taxation. The fact that travellers residing in other Member States may find it impossible to obtain tax remission in Spain leads to double taxation within the territory of the Community, on goods the value of which exceeds the amount set for exemption and on which VAT is payable in the Member State of final importation.

16Finally, even if, as the Kingdom of Spain asserts, any trader, or in general any taxable person for the purposes of VAT, may if he wishes obtain without any difficulty the official standard special invoice required by the relevant national rules, the traveller concerned, for his part, has no assurance that he will receive an invoice in the standard form. The taxable person may not possess the official form or may consider it easier to issue an ordinary invoice. In such a case, the traveller is unable to exercise his right to remission of tax, contrary to the purpose of the Directive.

17Thus it must be stated that, by exclusively requiring compulsory presentation of a document known as a "special invoice" in an official standard form in order to obtain the remission of value added tax in international travel, thereby preventing the exercise of that right by travellers who are in possession of an ordinary invoice which duly complies with Spanish legislation and with the Sixth Directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 69/169/EEC of 28 May 1969 on the harmonization of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel.

Costs

Costs

18Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the Kingdom of Spain has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,

THE COURT

hereby:

1. Declares that, by exclusively requiring compulsory presentation of a document known as a "special invoice" in an official standard form in order to obtain the remission of value added tax in international travel, thereby preventing the exercise of that right by travellers who are in possession of an ordinary invoice which duly complies with Spanish legislation and with the Sixth Council Directive ° 77/388/EEC ° of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes ° Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 69/169/EEC of 28 May 1969 on the harmonization of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel;

Signatures

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

GULMANN

delivered on 12 May 1992 ( *1 )

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

Introduction

1The Commission has applied for a declaration under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(4) of Council Directive 69/169/EEC on the harmonization of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel. ¹

The Commission claims that it is contrary to Article 6(4) of the directive for Spain to require production of a special invoice made out on a special standard form approved by the authorities as a condition for reimbursement of value added tax ² on exportation of goods carried in travellers' personal luggage.

2As is clear from the actual title of Directive 69/169/EEC, the key provisions of the directive concern exemption from turnover taxes for goods imported into Member States in the personal luggage of travellers arriving from third countries or from other Member States. The Court has already dealt with these rules in a number of cases and is therefore also aware that the tax exemption is subject to a series of conditions, including the provision that tax exemption may be given only in respect of goods the value of which does not exceed a specific fixed amount. ³

Article 6 contains rules for the remission of tax on the exportation of goods carried in travellers' personal luggage, in the case of travel either to a third country or to another Member State. The primary purpose of the provision is the avoidance of ‘double taxation’, that is, a traveller being required to pay value added tax in both the country of exportation and the country of importation. In the case of exportation to other Member States, the remission of tax provided for in Article 6 is limited to cases in which the directive does not give entitlement to tax exemption on importation, see the second subparagraph of Article 6(3).

The directive has been amended many times, and Article 6 three times. ⁴

Article 6 at present provides:

Member States shall take appropriate measures to avoid remission of tax being granted for deliveries to travellers whose domicile, habitual residence or place of work is situated in a Member State and who benefit from the arrangements provided for in this directive.

2Without prejudice to rules relating to sales made at airport shops under customs control and on board aircraft, Member States shall take the necessary steps with regard to sales at the retail stage to permit in the cases and under the conditions provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4 the remission of turnover tax on deliveries of goods carried in the personal luggage of travellers leaving a Member State. No remission may be granted in respect of excise duty.

3As regards travellers whose domicile or habitual residence is situated outside the Community, each Member State may set limits and lay down conditions of application in respect of tax remission.

As regards travellers whose domicile, habitual residence or place of work is situated in a Member State, there may be remission of tax only in respect of items the individual value of which, inclusive of tax, exceeds the amount specified in Article 2(1).

Member States may exclude their residents from the benefit of this tax remission.

4Remission of tax shall be subject:

in the cases referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 3, to production of a copy of the invoice or other document in lieu thereof, endorsed by the customs of the exporting Member States to certify exportation of the goods;

in the cases referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, to production of a copy of the invoice or other document in lieu thereof, endorsed by the customs of the Member State where final importation takes place or by another authority of that Member State competent in matters of turnover tax proving that the turnover tax has been or will be applied.

5For the purposes of this article

“domicile or habitual residence” means ...

“item” means ...’

The original version of the directive contained only the provision which is now paragraph 1. Paragraphs 2 to 5 were added under the Second Council Directive 72/230/EEC of 12 June 1972. ⁵ Subsequently certain provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 were amended by the Third Council Directive 78/1032/EEC of 19 December 1978 ⁶inter alia to the effect that Member States were obliged to give remission of turnover tax provided the conditions set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 were fulfilled. Finally, Council Directive 85/348/EEC of 8 July 1985 made a minor addition to paragraph 4(b). ⁷

3It is not in dispute that the Spanish Government has introduced a system whereby tax remission may be obtained only with the use of a special form — described by the Spanish Government as a ‘special invoice’ — which may be obtained on application to the Spanish tax authorities and on payment of PTA 25 per copy.

4The Spanish Government contends that the use of the special invoice ensures that the tax authorities have at the time of granting the remission all relevant information on which to base it, and that the compulsory requirement to use the form can therefore only be of benefit to the traveller applying for tax remission inasmuch as its use ensures that the tax may be repaid without any difficulty.

5The Commission does not dispute that the form concerned does not require any information other than that appropriate to ensure that the remission may be paid. On the other hand, the Commission claims that it is contrary to Article 6(4) for the use of the form to be compulsory under Spanish law and thus for the form to be the sole evidence which may be used by a traveller applying for tax remission. The Commission claims that it follows from Article 6(4) that an ordinary invoice, provided that it complies with the conditions óf the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 ⁸ and the general national value added tax legislation with regard to invoices, must also be acceptable as the basis for repayment of the tax.

6The issue is therefore a simple one requiring an interpretation of Article 6(4). Under that provision, tax remission in the case of export to a third country requires an endorsement from the customs authorities of the exporting State that the goods have been exported and in the case of exportation to another Member State endorsement by authorities in the State of importation that importation has taken place. In both cases, incidentally, tax remission requires ‘production of a copy of the invoice or other document in lieu thereof’.

7The Spanish Government contends that it follows from the provisions of Article 22(3)(c), taken in conjunction with Article 22(8) of the Sixth Council Directive, that it is possible for Member States to lay down special requirements for invoices to be used in connection with the operation of the value added tax system. The Spanish Government refers in this context to the Court judgment in Joined Cases 123 and 330/87 Jeunehomme, ⁹ where the Court ruled that the abovementioned provisions in the Council's Sixth Value Added Tax Directive gave the Member States power to require that the invoices to be used for the exercise of the right to deduction should contain particulars other than those referred to in Article 22(3)(b) of the directive. The Spanish Government takes the view that that power may also be used by the Member States to lay down special requirements for the invoices to be used in connection with tax remission under Directive 69/169. The use of special invoices for tax remission is justified not only because the special invoice makes it easier in practice for the traveller's tax remission to be effected but also because it simplifies the authorities' treatment of such cases and helps to prevent misuse of the remission system.

8I intend first to assess briefly whether the Commission is correct in stating that the disputed rules have such an effect that they may be said to be obviously at variance with Article 6(4) when interpreted in the light of the purpose of the provision. I shall then investigate whether it is possible to uphold the Spanish Government's contention that the disputed rules are in accordance with the abovementioned provisions of the Sixth Council Directive.

9To this extent I do not doubt that it may be helpful for the traveller applying for tax remission if the vendor of the taxable goods uses the prescribed special form when making out the invoice. I am by contrast in no doubt at all that the Commission is correct in stating that the compulsory requirement to use exclusively such a special invoice may lead to a traveller's being unable to obtain tax remission in circumstances in which by means of an ordinary invoice they could substantiate that the material conditions for obtaining remission of tax have been satisfied. It seems obvious that in practice there may very well be cases where neither the purchaser nor the vendor is aware of the existence of the requirement to use the special invoice, or where the vendor for one reason or another is not in possession of the special form. I therefore do not doubt that the disputed requirement may constitute a hindrance to effecting the remission of value added tax to which the traveller is entitled under Article 6(2) and (3). The Spanish requirement might therefore lead to the traveller's having to pay tax in both the State of exportation and the State of importation, which is incompatible with the purpose of the system of remission introduced by Directive 69/169/EEC.

10It is correct that it follows from the caselaw of the Court that Article 22(3)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive gives the Member States power to impose requirements additional to those directly referred to in Article 22 in respect of the content of an invoice. I do not, however, consider that those powers, which incidentally the Spanish authorities have used to impose additional obligations with regard to the content of ordinary invoices, can be extended to entitle Member States to go further and impose special requirements for the invoices to be used as evidence in relation to the reimbursement of value added tax in international travel. In the light of the purpose of the directive, the natural way to read Article 6(4) of Directive 69/169/EEC is that travellers should also be able to prove their entitlement to remission of value added tax by means of the ordinary invoice.

11I cannot see that there is any need to examine more closely the differences in terms of content between an ordinary invoice and the special invoice. As noted above, it is clear that the form requires more information to be given than that contained in the ordinary invoice and that up to a point that additional information is appropriate when the tax is to be refunded. By contrast, the Spanish Government has not shown either that tax remission cannot in practice be based on an ordinary invoice, or the existence of any special need to use the special form in order to prevent abuse of the remission system. It must be regarded as proven that an ordinary invoice is appropriate and adequate evidence, particularly since, according to the Commission, the other Member States accept an ordinary invoice as sufficient evidence under Article 6(4) of Directive 69/169/EEC. ¹⁰

12I conclude accordingly that the Kingdom of Spain is obliged to accept an ordinary invoice as evidence for the purposes of tax remission under Article 6 of Directive 69/169/EEC. So far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent the Spanish authorities also making a special form available to traders and travellers so that if they choose to do so they may use this as an alternative basis for exercising the right to remission of tax. The Spanish requirement to produce a special invoice is thus contrary to the directive only to the extent to which it precludes the possibility of the use of an ordinary invoice also as evidence.

Opinion

13In the light of the foregoing considerations, I shall propose that the Court uphold the Commission's application and should:

1declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 69/169/EEC by exclusively requiring presentation of a document known as a ‘special invoice’ in an official standard form as a necessary conditions for travellers in international travel to obtain reimbursement of value added tax, so that travellers who are in possession of an ordinary invoice which duly complies with Spanish legislation and with the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC cannot obtain reimbursement of tax; and

2order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

( *1 ) Original language: Danish.

¹ OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 232.

² The directive concerns both turnover tax and excise but Article 6(2), in fine, specifically excludes tax remission on export in the case of excise.

³ The Court interpreted the directive in, inter alia, its judgment in Case C-278/82 REWE II [1984] ECR 721.

⁴ I consider some form of consolidation of the text of the directive would be desirable in the interest not only of greater legal certainty for citizens but also of effective implementation of the directive in the Member Sutes.

⁵ OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 565.

⁶ OJ 1985 L 366, p. 28.

⁷ OJ 1985 L 183, p. 24.

⁸ On the harmonization 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, hereinafter ‘the Sixth Council Directive’.

⁹ [1988] ECR 4517.

¹⁰ Nothing in the case indicates that this situation is due to the fact that the other Member States impose stricter conditions for ordinary invoices than does Spain.