VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Other exemptions EU VAT case law

13 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2010 to 2021.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 13 cases, most recent first

Under each case, what the Court decided, from its summary. The summaries are AI-generated and are not official documents: open the case for the Court’s own text.

C-21/20 Balgarska natsionalna televizia

Judgment · 16 September 2021 · Bulgaria

Public broadcasting funded by State subsidy and the scope of deduction

The activity is not a supply for consideration. There is no legal relationship of reciprocal performance with viewers and no direct link between the services and the subsidy, which is set per programme hour regardless of viewership. Le Rayon d'Or is distinguished. The exemption question therefore falls away. Under Article 168, input VAT is deductible on purchases used for activities giving rise to deduction and not deductible on purchases used for out-of-scope activities. The method of financing is irrelevant. Member States set the apportionment method, respecting proportionality. Public broadcasters and comparable subsidy-funded bodies must treat free-to-air public service output as outside the scope of VAT, not exempt, and exclude it from the Articles 173 to 175 pro rata. Relevant to advisers to public bodies, cultural and media organisations and any taxable person with substantial grant funding alongside taxable supplies.

C-291/18 Grup Servicii Petroliere

Judgment · 20 June 2019 · Romania

Whether offshore jackup drilling rigs are vessels used for navigation on the high seas

The expression "vessels used for navigation on the high seas" does not cover floating structures such as offshore jackup drilling rigs used predominantly in a stationary position to exploit hydrocarbon deposits at sea. A structure qualifies only if put to use, at least primarily or predominantly, for movement in the maritime space. Classification as a vessel under national law is irrelevant, as is any wider meaning of "vessel" or "navigation" in environmental or excise legislation. Whether the rigs meet that test is for the national court. Suppliers, lessors, charterers and repairers dealing with offshore drilling units, accommodation platforms and comparable floating structures cannot rely on Article 148 simply because the unit is seaworthy or registered as a ship.

C-33/16 A

Judgment · 4 May 2017 · Finland

Exemption for cargo handling supplied through subcontractors

Cargo handling meets the direct needs of the cargo, and of the vessel, since carrying cargo is a usual form of operating a high seas vessel. The exemption is not limited to the last link in the chain. It also covers a subcontractor's supply re-invoiced to a forwarder or transporter, and supplies to the cargo holder. Elmeka's end of chain restriction is confined to services capable of diversion (fuel transport), where monitoring would be needed. Here the qualifying use is fixed by the type of vessel when the service is agreed. Port operators, stevedores, terminals, freight forwarders and their subcontractors can apply the Article 148(d) exemption at every level of the handling chain, so long as the vessel qualifies under Article 148(a).

C-592/15 British Film Institute

Judgment · 15 February 2017 · United Kingdom

No direct effect for the cultural services exemption

The provision does not have direct effect. The word "certain" means Member States are not obliged to exempt all cultural services. They decide which to exempt and may tax the rest. That discretion goes to the scope of the exemption, not merely to conditions of application, which distinguishes the case from Linneweber and JP Morgan Fleming Claverhouse. An untransposed provision of that kind cannot be invoked before national courts. The remaining questions were not answered. Museums, cinemas, theatres, galleries and other recognised cultural bodies cannot bypass national lists of exempt cultural services by invoking the Directive, whether to reclaim historic VAT for pre-transposition periods or to challenge a narrow domestic exemption.

C-264/14 Hedqvist

Judgment · 22 October 2015 · Sweden

VAT treatment of bitcoin exchange transactions

The exchange transactions are supplies of services for consideration. Bitcoin is not tangible property, having no purpose other than to serve as a means of payment, and the margin is direct consideration. They are exempt under Article 135(1)(e), which is not confined to legal tender but extends to non-traditional currencies accepted by the parties as an alternative to legal tender with no purpose other than as a means of payment. Articles 135(1)(d) and (f) do not apply. Bitcoin is neither an instrument transferring money nor a security.

C-526/13 Fast Bunkering Klaipėda

Judgment · 3 September 2015 · Lithuania

Bunkering exemption and supplies through intermediaries acting in their own name

In principle the exemption does not apply. It is confined to the final supply to the vessel operator who uses the goods, and evidence of ultimate use does not extend it (the aircraft case law under Article 148(f) is not transferable, there being no common registration mechanism for bunkers). However, it may apply where ownership passes to the intermediary no earlier than the moment the operator becomes entitled to dispose of the fuel as owner, that is, on loading into the tanks. That is for the national court to verify. For bunker suppliers and traders, documentary proof of ultimate maritime use does not zero rate a sale into a trading chain. Relevant to marine fuel supply, bunker broking and commodity trading structures across the EU.

C-144/14 Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei

Judgment · 9 July 2015 · Romania

Retroactive VAT assessment on veterinary services and duty to register a taxable person of the authority's own motion

Article 273 does not require registration of a taxable person's own motion on the basis of non-VAT returns. It is for the taxable person to declare commencement of activity under Article 213(1), and Member States retain discretion. Legal certainty and legitimate expectations do not preclude assessment within the limitation period, provided the rules are clear (removal from the exemption list suffices, VAT being of general application) and the authority's practice gave no precise assurances. Verification is for the national court. Confirms that a Member State's failure to police registration does not transfer the registration burden to the tax authority. Relevant to advisers dealing with retrospective assessments in newer Member States and with professions whose exempt status changed on accession.

C-272/13 Equoland

Judgment · 17 July 2014 · Italy

Virtual placement in a VAT warehouse and double collection of import VAT

A physical placement requirement is compatible with the Directive. It is a formal condition but an effective and proportionate means of ensuring correct collection and preventing evasion. However, where the tax has already been paid under the reverse charge with no evasion or loss to the exchequer, requiring payment again, without a corresponding deduction, breaches neutrality. A fixed percentage increase incapable of gradation may exceed what is necessary. Default interest may suffice. Proportionality is for the national court. Relevant to importers, freight forwarders and warehousekeepers using VAT warehousing regimes, particularly in Italy.

C-461/12 Granton Advertising

Judgment · 12 June 2014 · Netherlands

VAT treatment of discount cards

Neither of the two exemptions applies to the sale of such a card. The card gives no ownership right, no claim against the issuer, has no nominal value and cannot be exchanged for money or goods, so it is not comparable to the securities listed and its sale is not a financial transaction. Nor is it a payment instrument. It does not transfer money, unlike payments, transfers and cheques. Use of the card is a price discount excluded from the affiliated business's taxable amount under Article 11(A)(3)(b), not a payment. Issuers of discount and loyalty cards must account for VAT on the full consideration received from consumers, the taxable amount being simply the card price.

C-197/12 Commission v France

Judgment · 21 March 2013 · France

France breached the high seas condition for the exemption of vessel-related supplies

The Court upholds the Commission action and finds the infringement established. The exemptions in Article 148 apply only to vessels used for navigation on the high seas, and a Member State may not extend them to vessels carrying passengers for reward or used for commercial activities which do not satisfy that condition. France was ordered to pay the costs. The judgment forced a change in French practice and is the reference point whenever the high seas condition is in issue, alongside Elmeka and the later Fonderie 2A and A Oy cases.

C-33/11 A Oy

Judgment · 19 July 2012 · Finland

Exemption for aircraft supplied to an owner who makes them available to an airline

International charter flights for undertakings and private persons fall within the wording. The exemption applies to a supply to an operator who is not itself a qualifying airline but acquires the aircraft for exclusive use by one. Ownership is immaterial, the sole criterion being use by an airline operating for reward chiefly on international routes. Passing the cost on to a shareholder using the aircraft privately does not alter that, but the national court must verify intended commercial use and may find an abusive practice. Confirms that aircraft leasing and ownership vehicles can buy exempt where the aircraft is destined for exclusive use by a qualifying international airline, so no VAT cash-flow advance arises at acquisition. Relevant to aircraft lessors, corporate aviation structures and their advisers.

C-225/11 Able UK

Judgment · 26 April 2012 · United Kingdom

Scope of the NATO forces exemption

The exemption applies only cumulatively. The services must be supplied for staff of the other State's armed forces taking part in the common defence effort, or for the civilian staff accompanying them, and those forces must be stationed in or visiting the Member State where the supply takes place. The comma in some language versions is not decisive. The qualification governs the provision as a whole, and exemptions are construed strictly. Supplies to forces in their own Member State remain taxable. Suppliers of goods or services to foreign NATO forces cannot rely on the customer's status alone.

C-116/10 Feltgen and Bacino Charter Company

Judgment · 22 December 2010 · Luxembourg

Exemption for the hiring of sea-going vessels to private users

The exemption does not apply. For a hiring of a sea-going vessel to be exempt, the lessee must use the vessel for an economic activity. Where it is used exclusively for leisure and not for financial gain, the conditions are not met. Charterers using a vessel strictly for private purposes are final consumers. The classification of the supply in national law is irrelevant, and Member States' implementing conditions cannot alter the subject-matter of the exemption. Relevant to yacht owning and charter structures, ship management companies and their advisers, particularly crewed charters marketed to private clients.

Related topics

Exemptions · Supply of services · Transactions in securities · Origin and scope of right of deduction · Proportional deduction · Right of deduction · Discretion of the Member States · Transactions concerning deposit and current accounts · Supply of goods · Legitimate expectations