HvJ EG, 02-05-1996, nr. C-231/94

HvJ EG, 02-05-1996, nr. C-231/94

Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.

Uitspraak 02‑05‑1996

C. N. Kakouris, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini, F.A. Schockweiler, P.J.G. Kapteyn

Partij(en)

Arrest van het Hof (Zesde kamer)

2 mei 1996.

(Richtlijn 77/388 van de Raad, art. 5, 6, lid 1, en 9, lid 1)

In zaak C-231/94,

betreffende een verzoek aan het Hof krachtens artikel 177 EG-Verdrag van het Bundesfinanzhof, in het aldaar aanhangig geding tussen

Faaborg-Gelting Linien A/S

en

Finanzamt Flensburg,

Fiscale bepalingen o Harmonisatie van wetgevingen o Omzetbelasting o Gemeenschappelijk stelsel van belasting over toegevoegde waarde o Dienstverrichtingen o Begrip o Restaurantverrichtingen o Daaronder begrepen o Restaurantverrichtingen aan boord van veerschepen o Bepaling van fiscale plaats van dienstverrichting o Zetel van bedrijfsuitoefening door dienstverrichter

om een prejudiciële beslissing over de uitlegging van de Zesde richtlijn (77/388/EEG) van de Raad van 17 mei 1977 betreffende de harmonisatie van de wetgevingen der Lid-Staten inzake omzetbelasting o Gemeenschappelijk stelsel van belasting over de toegevoegde waarde: uniforme grondslag (PB 1977, L 145, blz. 1), inzonderheid de artikelen 5, 6, 8 en 9,

wijst

HET HOF VAN JUSTITIE (Zesde kamer),

samengesteld als volgt: C. N. Kakouris, kamerpresident, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini (rapporteur), F. A. Schockweiler en P. J. G. Kapteyn, rechters,

advocaat-generaal: G. Cosmas

griffier: H. von Holstein, adjunct-griffier

gelet op de schriftelijke opmerkingen ingediend door:

o de Duitse regering, vertegenwoordigd door E. Roeder, Ministerialrat bij het Bondsministerie van Economische zaken, en B. Kloke, Regierungsrat bij dit ministerie, als gemachtigden,

o de Italiaanse regering, vertegenwoordigd door U. Leanza, hoofd van de afdeling diplomatieke geschillen van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse zaken, als gemachtigde, bijgestaan door I. Braguglia, avvocato dello Stato,

o de Nederlandse regering, vertegenwoordigd door A. Bos, juridisch adviseur bij het Ministerie van Buitenlandse zaken, als gemachtigde,

o de Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen, vertegenwoordigd door haar juridisch adviseur J. Grunwald als gemachtigde,

gezien het rapport ter terechtzitting,

gehoord de mondelinge opmerkingen van Faaborg-Gelting Linien A/S, vertegenwoordigd door D. Behrens, advocaat te Kiel

de Duitse regering, vertegenwoordigd door B. Kloke

de Nederlandse regering, vertegenwoordigd door J. S. van den Oosterkamp, juridisch adviseur van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse zaken, als gemachtigde, en de Commissie, vertegenwoordigd door J. Grunwald, ter terechtzitting van 23 november 1995,

gehoord de conclusie van de advocaat-generaal ter terechtzitting van 1 februari 1996,

het navolgende

Arrest

1

Bij beschikking van 30 mei 1994, ingekomen bij het Hof op 11 augustus daaraanvolgend, heeft het Bundesfinanzhof krachtens artikel 177 EG-Verdrag drie prejudiciële vragen gesteld over de uitlegging van de Zesde richtlijn (77/388/EEG) van de Raad van 17 mei 1977 betreffende de harmonisatie van de wetgevingen der Lid-Staten inzake omzetbelasting o Gemeenschappelijk stelsel van belasting over de toegevoegde waarde: uniforme grondslag (PB 1977, L 145, blz. 1 hierna: ‘Zesde richtlijn’), inzonderheid de artikelen 5, 6, 8 en 9.

2

Die vragen zijn gerezen in een geschil tussen Faaborg-Gelting Linien A/S (hierna: ‘FG-Linien’), gevestigd te Denemarken, en de Duitse belastingdienst, ter zake van de belastingheffing over de verstrekking van maaltijden voor consumptie aan boord van veerboten die een lijndienst tussen de haven van Faaborg (Denemarken) en die van Gelting (Duitsland) onderhouden.

3

Volgens artikel 5, lid 1, van de Zesde richtlijn, wordt als ‘levering van een goed’ beschouwd de overdracht of overgang van de macht om als een eigenaar over een lichamelijke zaak te beschikken. Volgens artikel 6, lid 1, wordt als ‘dienst’ beschouwd elke handeling die geen levering van een goed in de zin van artikel 5 is.

4

De bepaling van de plaats van belastbare handelingen is geregeld in de artikelen 8 en 9 van de Zesde richtlijn. Artikel 8, lid 1, sub b, luidt als volgt:

‘1. Als plaats van een levering van goederen wordt aangemerkt:

a)

(…)

b)

ingeval het goed niet wordt verzonden of vervoerd: de plaats waar het goed zich bevindt op het tijdstip van de levering.’

5

Artikel 9, lid 1, luidt als volgt:

‘1. Als plaats van een dienst wordt aangemerkt de plaats waar de dienstverrichter de zetel van zijn bedrijfsuitoefening of een vaste inrichting heeft gevestigd van waaruit hij de dienst verricht, of bij gebreke van een dergelijke zetel of vaste inrichting, zijn woonplaats of zijn gebruikelijke verblijfplaats.’

6

Omdat zij de betrokken restaurantverrichtingen beschouwde als diensten in de zin van het Umsatzsteuergesetz (Duitse wet op de omzetbelasting, hierna: ‘UStG’), die ingevolge artikel 9 van de Zesde richtlijn moeten worden geacht te zijn verricht op de plaats waar de dienstverrichter de zetel van zijn bedrijfsuitoefening heeft gevestigd, vermeldde FG-Linien deze handelingen niet in haar aangiften omzetbelasting die zij over de jaren 1984 tot en met 1989 bij de Duitse belastingdienst indiende.

7

De Duitse belastingdienst daarentegen beschouwde de restaurantverrichtingen als leveringen van goederen in de zin van de UStG, die ingevolge artikel 8 van de Zesde richtlijn moeten worden geacht plaats te vinden op de plaats waar het goed zich op het tijdstip van de levering bevindt. Zij legde FG-Linien derhalve een aanslag op ter zake van de restaurantverrichtingen die in het betrokken tijdvak binnen de territoriale werkingssfeer van het UStG op de veerboot hadden plaatsgevonden.

8

Nadat haar bezwaarschrift bij het Finanzamt en haar beroep bij het Finanzgericht beide waren verworpen, stelde FG-Linien beroep tot ‘Revision’ in bij het Bundesfinanzhof.

9

In zijn verwijzingsbeschikking overweegt deze rechterlijke instantie, dat de restaurantverrichtingen te beschouwen zijn als leveringen van goederen in de zin van het UStG. Deze kwalificatie zou niet in strijd zijn met onder meer de artikelen 5 en 6 van de Zesde richtlijn, die geen specifieke bepalingen bevatten die restaurantverrichtingen als leveringen van goederen dan wel als diensten kwalificeren. Aangezien deze handelingen niet in alle Lid-Staten als leveringen van goederen worden gekwalificeerd, bestaat het gevaar dat zij dubbel worden belast, hetgeen door een uniforme uitlegging zou kunnen worden voorkomen.

10

Het Bundesfinanzhof heeft het Hof de volgende prejudiciële vragen gesteld:

‘1)

Welke regels bevat de Zesde richtlijn (77/388/EEG) voor de belastingheffing ter zake van de verstrekking van spijzen voor nuttiging ter plaatse (restaurantverrichtingen)?

2)

Bij ontbreken van dergelijke regels: welke gemeenschapsrechtelijke regeling geldt voor restaurantverrichtingen aan boord van vervoermiddelen die zich verplaatsen tussen Lid-Staten met verschillende nationale regelingen inzake de plaats waar die handelingen moeten worden belast?

3)

Bij ontbreken van een gemeenschapsrechtelijke regeling: kunnen de afzonderlijke Lid-Staten hun onderling verschillende regelingen met betrekking tot restaurantverrichtingen respectievelijk de plaats waar de verrichtingen plaatsvinden, handhaven, wanneer zij door middel van afspraken in concrete gevallen dubbele heffing ter zake van deze verrichtingen vermijden?’

11

Met zijn eerste vraag wenst de verwijzende rechter in hoofdzaak te vernemen, of restaurantverrichtingen leveringen van goederen zijn in de zin van artikel 5 van de Zesde richtlijn, die ingevolge artikel 8, lid 1, sub b, worden geacht plaats te vinden op de plaats waar het goed zich op het tijdstip van de levering bevindt, dan wel diensten in de zin van artikel 6, lid 1, die ingevolge artikel 9, lid 1, van deze richtlijn worden geacht te zijn verricht op de plaats waar de dienstverrichter de zetel van zijn bedrijfsuitoefening heeft gevestigd.

12

Om te bepalen of handelingen leveringen van goederen dan wel diensten zijn, moeten alle omstandigheden waaronder de betrokken handeling wordt verricht in aanmerking worden genomen om daaruit de kenmerkende elementen naar voren te halen.

13

De verstrekking van toebereide spijzen en dranken voor onmiddellijke consumptie is het resultaat van een serie diensten, die begint bij de toebereiding van de spijzen en eindigt bij de feitelijke opdiening, en waarbij de klant een infrastructuur ter beschikking wordt gesteld, bestaande uit een restauratiezaal met bijbehorende ruimten (garderobe etc.) alsmede meubilair en serviesgoed. In voorkomend geval zullen de natuurlijke personen wier beroep dit is, de tafel dekken, de klant adviseren en hem informeren over de aangeboden spijzen of dranken, de gerechten aan tafel opdienen en ten slotte na de maaltijd de tafel afruimen.

14

De restaurantverrichting wordt derhalve gekenmerkt door een reeks van elementen en handelingen, waarvan de levering van voedsel niet meer dan een onderdeel is en waarin het dienstenaspect ruimschoots de overhand heeft. Zij moet bijgevolg als dienst in de zin van artikel 6, lid 1, van de Zesde richtlijn worden beschouwd. Dit is echter anders, wanneer de verrichting betrekking heeft op ‘afhaal’-maaltijden en niet gepaard gaat met diensten die de nuttiging ter plaatse in een passend kader moeten veraangenamen.

15

Nu vaststaat dat de restaurantverrichting aan boord van een veerboot een dienst is, moet worden bepaald op welke plaats hij moet worden geacht te zijn verricht.

16

Dienaangaande volgt uit vaste rechtspraak (zie arrest van 4 juli 1985, zaak 168/84, Berkholz, Jurispr. 1985, blz. 2251, r.o. 17), dat volgens artikel 9, lid 1, de plaats waar de dienstverrichter de zetel van zijn bedrijfsuitoefening heeft gevestigd, in dit verband de voorkeur lijkt te verdienen, daar het in aanmerking nemen van een andere inrichting van waaruit de dienst wordt verricht, slechts van belang is in geval de zetel niet tot een fiscaal rationele oplossing leidt of een conflict met een andere Lid-Staat doet ontstaan.

17

Volgens bedoelde rechtspraak blijkt uit het onderlinge verband tussen de in artikel 9 gebruikte begrippen, dat slechts kan worden overwogen een andere inrichting dan de zetel aan te merken als plaats waar de dienst wordt verricht, indien die inrichting een zekere bestendigheid vertoont, doordat zij duurzaam over het personeel en de technische middelen beschikt die voor bepaalde diensten noodzakelijk zijn (r.o. 18 van het aangehaalde arrest).

18

Dit is kennelijk niet het geval met een restauratieruimte op een schip, vooral niet wanneer, zoals in casu, de vaste zetel van de exploitant van het schip een bruikbaar aanknopingspunt voor de belastingheffing vormt.

19

Op de eerste vraag dient dus te worden geantwoord, dat restaurantverrichtingen te beschouwen zijn als diensten in de zin van artikel 6, lid 1, van de Zesde richtlijn, die overeenkomstig artikel 9, lid 1, van deze richtlijn moeten worden geacht te zijn verricht op de plaats waar de dienstverrichter de zetel van zijn bedrijfsuitoefening heeft gevestigd.

20

Gelet op dit antwoord behoeven de tweede en de derde vraag niet te worden beantwoord.

Kosten

21

De kosten door de Duitse, de Italiaanse en de Nederlandse regering en de Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen wegens indiening hunner opmerkingen bij het Hof gemaakt, kunnen niet voor vergoeding in aanmerking komen. Ten aanzien van de partijen in het hoofdgeding is de procedure als een aldaar gerezen incident te beschouwen, zodat de nationale rechterlijke instantie over de kosten heeft te beslissen.

HET HOF VAN JUSTITIE (Zesde kamer),

uitspraak doende op de door het Bundesfinanzhof bij beschikking van 30 mei 1994 gestelde vragen, verklaart voor recht:

Restaurantverrichtingen zijn te beschouwen als diensten in de zin van artikel 6, lid 1, van de Zesde richtlijn (77/388/EEG) van de Raad van 17 mei 1977 betreffende de harmonisatie van de wetgevingen der Lid-Staten inzake omzetbelasting o Gemeenschappelijk stelsel van belasting over de toegevoegde waarde: uniforme grondslag, die overeenkomstig artikel 9, lid 1, van deze richtlijn moeten worden geacht te zijn verricht op de plaats waar de dienstverrichter de zetel van zijn bedrijfsuitoefening heeft gevestigd.

Conclusie 01‑02‑1996

COSMAS

Partij(en)

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL COSMAS

delivered on 1 February 1996*

FAABORG-GELTING LINIEN

V

FINANZAMT FLENSBURG

1

In this case the Court has been asked to interpret 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 assessment1. (hereinafter ‘the Sixth Directive’), in particular Articles 5, 6, 8 and 9 thereof.

I — The dispute

2

The appellant in the main proceedings, Faaborg-Gelting Linien A/S (hereinafter ‘FG-Linien’), whose registered office is at Faaborg, Denmark, is a company incorporated under Danish law which operates a ferry running a scheduled service between Gelting in Germany and Faaborg in Denmark. During the crossing, food and drink for consumption on the spot are provided to passengers. FG-Linien did not include its receipts from the provision of food and drink on board the ferry in its turnover tax declarations for the financial years 1984 to 1989.

3

FG-Linien submits that the aforementioned supply of drinks and meals to ferry passengers should be categorized as a supply of services, and that consequently, under Paragraph 3(a)(1) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz 1980 (German Law on Turnover Tax, hereinafter ‘the UStG’) transposing Article 9 of the Sixth Directive, the place of supply of the services concerned should be deemed to be the place at which the company has established its business, namely Denmark. The German tax authorities charged turnover tax on the receipts from the aforementioned supply of meals and drinks on the ground that, under the UStG (first sentence of Paragraph 1(1)(1), Paragraph 1(3)(1) and Paragraph 3(1) and (6)), the supply of food and drink to passengers is a supply of goods, which is taxable at the place where it is carried out. FG-Linien brought a complaint and an action against the imposition of VAT, both of which were dismissed. Thereupon, FG-Linien appealed to the Bundesfinanzhof, which considered that it was necessary to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty.

II — Preliminary questions

4

By order of 3 May 1994,2. the Fifth Senate of the Bundesfinanzhof asked the Court to give a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

‘1.

What rules does the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC contain for the taxation of transactions for the supply of foods for consumption on the spot (restaurant transactions)?

2.

If there are no such rules, what rules of Community law apply to restaurant transactions on board means of transport plying between Member States with differing national rules on the place of taxation of such transactions?

3.

If there are no such rules of Community law, can individual Member States maintain their differing rules on restaurant transactions or on the place of supply of such transactions, if those Member States by agreement avoid double taxation of the transactions in the individual case?’

5

As far as these questions are concerned, it should first be noted that the aforementioned transactions carried out on a ferry are covered by the provisions of the Sixth Directive. There is a precedent to this effect. In an earlier case, the Court has already had occasion to deal with questions raised by the application of the Sixth Directive to activities carried out on board a ship plying between two Member States.3. Consequently, as the Commission and all the Member States which intervened in the proceedings — the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Italian Republic — have emphasized in their observations, the second and third questions are to no purpose, since they are based on the idea that such activities do not fall within the scope of the relevant Community provisions. It follows that those questions do not need to be answered. As far as the first question is concerned, it appears from the grounds of the order for reference that the proceedings essentially raise questions relating to the interpretation of Articles 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the directive. More specifically, the first, main question is how the activity in question is to be classed. The second question is that of the determination of the place where the taxable transaction in question is to be deemed to have been carried out, that is to say, the place of supply of the food and drink.

6

It should further be noted that, in connection with this case, the Court asked the German Government and the Commission, by letters dated 3 October 1995, questions relating to the registration of the ferry operated by FG-Linien and the geographical scope of the USCG. From their answers, it appears that:

(a)

the ferry is registered at the port of Faaborg in Denmark and

(b)

international waters and territorial waters do not in principle fall within the geographical scope of the LTStG.

Nevertheless, commercial transactions carried out in territorial waters for end-consumers are deemed to be transactions carried out within the jurisdiction to which the UStG applies and are therefore subject to value added tax.

III — Relevant legislation and case-law

7

With a view to establishing a common system of VAT within the Community, the Sixth Directive requires Member States to bring their national VAT systems into line with the common rules which it lays down. Those rules relate, inter alia, to the determination of the place where taxable transactions are deemed to be effected, which, according to the seventh recital in the preamble to the directive, is essential in order to avoid conflicts concerning jurisdiction as between Member States.

8

Thus, Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive requires Member States to subject to VAT ‘the supply of goods or services effected for consideration within the territory of the country by a taxable person acting as such’. Article 3(1) provides that ‘for the purposes of this Directive, the ‘territory of the country’ shall be the area of application of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community as stipulated in respect of each Member State in Article 227’. As the Court held in Berkholz‘the territorial scope of the directive coincides, in the case of each Member State, with the scope of its value added tax legislation’.4. Articles 5 and 6 define the expressions ‘supply of goods’ and ‘supply of services’. Article 5(1) states that ‘‘supply of goods’ means the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner’. The expression ‘supply of services’ is defined in Article 6 of the directive, which provides that ‘‘supply of services’ shall mean any transaction which does not constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5’.

9

Articles 8 and 9 contain provisions determining the place of supply of taxable transactions. Article 8 provides that the place of supply of goods is deemed to be the place where the goods are when the supply takes place. As far as supplies of services are concerned, according to Article 9(1) of the Sixth Directive, the place of supply is deemed to be the place where the supplier has established his business or has a fixed establishment from which the service is supplied or, in the absence of such a place of business or fixed establishment, the place where he has his permanent address or usually resides. Thus, the rule is that the VAT legislation of the Member State with which the provider of services has a close geographical link is to be applied to a supply of services. In view of the foregoing, in order to define that link, that provision employs two primary points of reference and one alternative one.

10

The Court has held as regards that provision that, ‘in order to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction in cases where the supply of services is covered by the laws of more than one Member State, Article 9(1), by way of derogation from the strict principle of territoriality, lays down the general rule that the service is deemed to be supplied at the place where the supplier has established his business or has a fixed establishment from which the service is supplied’.5.

11

Interpreting the same provision, the Court held in Berkholz that, for a particular supply of services, the primary point of reference for tax purposes is ‘the place where the supplier has established his business … inasmuch as regard is to be had to another establishment from which the services are supplied only if the reference to the place where the supplier has established his business does not lead to a rational result for tax purposes or creates a conflict with another Member State’.6. In the same judgment, the Court held that ‘it appears from the context of the concepts employed in Article 9 and from its aim … that services cannot be deemed to be supplied at an establishment other than the place where the supplier has established his business unless that establishment is of a certain minimum size and both the human and technical resources necessary for the provision of the services are permanently present’.7. Consequently, Article 9(1) identifies, as far as provisions of services are concerned, the place of supply and, consequently, the place of taxation with the place where the company supplying the services has established its business. According to the case-law cited above, that place is regarded as being the most useful point of reference for tax purposes. This means that, according to the provision in question, the tax law applicable to a supply of services is principally that of the place where the supplier of the services has established his business.

12

As far as the interpretation of the provisions of the Sixth Directive is concerned, it should also be pointed out that the concepts set out therein are Community concepts and must therefore be interpreted uniformly so as to avoid differences of interpretation as between Member States, which could result in double taxation or no tax being levied at all.8. In addition to the requirement for uniform interpretation, there is the requirement that Community legislation should be certain and foreseeable, which, as the Court has consistently held, must be observed all the more strictly in the case of rules such as the Community VAT provisions which are liable to entail financial consequences in order that interested parties may know precisely the extent of their obligations.9. The national court's questions have to be answered in the light of the aforementioned provisions and principles laid down in the case-law.

IV — Reply to the national court's questions

13

In this case, the essential question is what VAT legislation is applicable to activities consisting of the supply of food and drink to be consumed on the spot on a ferry plying between Denmark and Germany. In order to answer this question, it is necessary first to establish whether the transaction in question must be classed as a supply of goods or a supply of services within the meaning of the aforementioned provisions of the Sixth Directive. Once they have been so classed, it will be necessary to ascertain on that basis the place to which the transaction has to be connected for tax purposes.

Classification of an activity consisting of the supply of food and drink aboard a ship

14

In order to distinguish between the concepts of the ‘supply of goods’ and the ‘supply of services’, it will be necessary to identify the primary and secondary components of the activity in question.

Where, in the course of the crossing, the undertaking provides ferry passengers with food and drink for consideration without providing them with any additional services, what is involved is a ‘supply of goods’, in so far as the activity in question is characterized essentially by the supply of food and drink, which is the only aim contemplated by the passengers wishing to consume them.

In contrast, where — as appears to be the case here — the food and drink are provided to passengers at the same time as supplementary services, designed to enable those commodities to be consumed comfortably on board the ferry (that is to say, in the form of restaurant services), the latter services constitute the essential characteristic of the activity in question, even though the activity also consists of the supply of food and drink. In this case, the price paid is essentially consideration for those services and a ‘supply of services’ is involved.

15

In addition, that classification is borne out by the International Standard Industrial Classification of all Economic Activities (ISIC), drawn up by the UN Statistical Office,10. which classes under ex Major Group 85, ‘personal services’, restaurants, cafes, taverns and other drinking and eating places (Group 852). That classification of the activities in question also applies in Community law in so far as it was taken over by the two general programmes adopted by the Council in 1961 for the abolition of restrictions on freedom to provide services and restrictions on freedom of establishment.11. Accordingly — as, moreover, the Court has held — the aforementioned international classification now forms part of Community law and, more specifically, of the aforementioned programmes and of the Community measures implementing those programmes.12.

16

In addition, Directive 68/367/EEC, which the Council adopted on 15 October 968,13. is specifically concerned with the attainment of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of activities of self-employed persons in the personal services sector, namely services provided by restaurants, cafes, taverns and other drinking and eating places and hotels, rooming houses, camps and other lodging places. Article 2(2) of the directive provides as follows: ‘For the purposes of this Directive ‘activities falling within Group 852 (Restaurants, cafes, taverns and other drinking and eating places)’ means activities pursued by a natural person, or company or firm, who habitually and by way of trade and in his own name and on his own account serves prepared food or beverages for consumption on the premises in the establishment or establishments run by him. The provisions of this Directive shall apply also to the serving of meals for consumption elsewhere than on the premises where they are prepared.’ Consequently, it is clear that the activity in question must be classed as a supply of services under Community law.

17

I would further note that Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending the Sixth Directive14. contains a provision from which it emerges, indirectly but clearly, that the Community legislature regards catering activities on means of transport as a supply of services. Article 1(4) of that directive provides as follows: ‘The Commission shall, by 30 June 1993 at the latest, submit to the Council a report accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate proposals on the place of taxation of goods supplied for consumption and services, including restaurant services, provided for passengers on board ships, aircraft or trains.’

Place of application of value added tax

18

The classification of the supply of food and drink on board ship as a supply of services means, under Article 9(1) of the Sixth Directive, that, for tax purposes, those services are subject to the legislation of the place where the supplier has established his business. In the instant case, therefore, the supply of services is taxable in Denmark, where the company operating the ferry between Faaborg and Gelting has established its business.

19

The Commission and the German Government submit in their observations that, in the event that the Court should class the activity in question as a supply of services, the place of supply should be deemed to be the place where the supplier has a fixed establishment. They argue that if the activity in Question were to be connected with the place where the supplier has established his business, this would lead to a conflict as to fiscal jurisdiction between Member States, because under the legislation of some Member States, including Germany, the activity in question is classed as a supply of goods, whereas under the legislation of other countries, such as Denmark, it is classed as a supply of services. The Commission and the German Government argue that a fixed establishment should be held to exist on the ferry as far as the activity in question is concerned. This is because a restaurant undertaking operating on board ship satisfies all the criteria set out in Berkholz, where the establishment concerned is required to have a certain minimum size and both the human and technical resources necessary for the provision of the services have to be permanently present.15.

20

I am unable to agree with that proposition, since, according to the Court's case-law, a fixed establishment cannot be taken into account where reference to the place where the supplier has established his business is appropriate for tax purposes. I would point out that, according to the case-law cited above, the place where the supplier of the service has established his business is the most appropriate reference point for tax purposes.16. To connect the provision of taxable services to any establishment of the supplier whatsoever is of interest only where connecting it with the place where the supplier has established his business does not produce a rational result for tax purposes or creates a conflict with another Member State However, in this case, the risk of a conflict with another Member State is not caused by connecting the supply of the service with the place where the supplier has established his business, but by the fact that the tax legislation of two Member States classify the same activity differently. That conflicting classification and the resulting conflict of tax jurisdiction can be avoided by using a uniform Community interpretation of the concept of ‘supply of services’ mentioned in Article 9 of the Sixth Directive in order to classify the activity in question.

21

Apart from that, to hold that there was a fixed establishment on board the ferry would not provide a satisfactory answer to the question before the Court. Such a solution would create practical problems in determining the place of supply where the ferry plies between two Member States or, a fortiori, where it passes on its journey successively through the territorial waters of the State from which it is sailing, through international waters and finally through the territorial waters of the State in which its destination lies.

22

In that event, it would be necessary to determine the amount of restaurant services provided over each stage of the ferry's journey in order to apply the corresponding VAT in accordance with the legislation applicable over each portion of the route. That solution would, however, be fraught with serious difficulties and would entail the risk of differing assessments by the national tax authority competent in each instance. Consequently, I do not consider that that solution would produce a rational delimitation of the fields of application of the laws of the Member States.

23

If, however, there were held to be a fixed establishment on a vessel, it would have to be connected with the territory of the Member State with which it has sufficiently close links. The Court has, moreover, employed that test in similar cases, such as where a national of a Member State had been in continuous employment on a ship registered in another Member State. Thus in the judgment in Lopes da Veiga,17. the Court held that a Portuguese national employed on board a ship flying the Dutch flag had to be regarded as being employed in the Netherlands in so far as he had sufficiently close links with the territory of that State. Whether or not such links exist has to be determined in the light of circumstances such as the port at which the vessel is registered, the place where the company has its registered office and the application to the worker concerned of the social security or income tax law of the Member State in question.

That test would mean that the supply of services performed during the crossing would have to be taxed in the Member State with which the establishment on the vessel had close links. In this case, the Danish legislation would have to apply, since the ferry is registered at a Danish port and the company's registered office is located in that country.

V — Conclusion

24

Having regard to the whole of the foregoing, I propose that the Court should answer the Bundesfinanzhof's question in the following terms:

The supply of food and drink to be consumed on the spot on board a ferry plying between two Member States, accompanied by restaurant services, constitutes a supply of services within the meaning of Article 6(1) and Article 9(1) of 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 supply of such services is taxable in the Member State in which the provider of the services has established his business.

Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.