JAN 18

CJEU expected to judge in Case C-471/15, Sjelle Autogenbrug (VAT)

Questions referred:

The question put to the Court in this case is whether spare parts for motor vehicles can be classified as ‘second-hand goods’ within the meaning of Article 311(1)(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC.

The Opinion as delivered by Advocate General Bot on September 22, 2016 can be found here

JAN 18

CJEU expected to judge in Case C-37/16, SAWP (VAT)

Questions referred:

·     Do authors, performers and other rightholders supply services, within the meaning of Articles 24(1) and 25(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, to producers and importers of audio recorders and similar devices and blank media, on whom collective management organisations levy on behalf of those authors, performers and other rightholders, but in their own name, fees on those devices and media by virtue of their sale?

·     If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, are collective management organisations, in levying a fee on devices and media by virtue of their sale by producers and importers, acting as taxable persons, within the meaning of Article 28 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), who are required to document those activities by means of an invoice for the purposes of Article 220(1)(1) of that directive, issued to producers and importers of audio recorders and similar devices and blank media, showing VAT as due by virtue of the fees, and, at the time at which the fees levied on behalf of the authors, performers and other rightholders are distributed to them, are the latter required to document receipt of the fees by means of an invoice indicating that VAT issued to the collective management organisation levying the fee?

JAN 19

CJEU expected to judge in Case C-344/15, National Roads Authority (VAT)

Questions referred:

·     If a body governed by public law carries on an activity such as providing access to a road on payment of a toll and if in the Member State there are private bodies who collect tolls on different toll roads pursuant to an agreement with the public body concerned under national statutory provisions, is the second indent of Article 13[1] of Council Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the public body concerned must be deemed to be in competition with the private operators concerned such that to treat the public body as a non-taxable person is deemed to lead to a significant distortion of competition notwithstanding the facts that (a) there is not and cannot be any actual competition between the public body and the private operators concerned and (b) there is no evidence that there is any realistic possibility that any private operator could enter the market to build and operate a toll road which would compete with the toll road operated by the public body?

·     If there is no presumption, what exercise should be conducted to determine whether there is significant distortion of competition within the meaning of the second indent of Article 13[1] of Council Directive 2006/112/EC?

The Opinion as delivered by Advocate General Szpunar on September 8, 2016 can be found here