Julius Fillibeck Söhne GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Neustadt.
| Jurisdiction | European Union |
| Celex Number | 61995CJ0258 |
| ECLI | ECLI:EU:C:1997:491 |
| Docket Number | C-258/95 |
| Court | Court of Justice (European Union) |
| Procedure Type | Reference for a preliminary ruling |
| Date | 16 October 1997 |
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 1997. - Julius Fillibeck Söhne GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Neustadt. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesfinanzhof - Germany. - Sixth VAT Directive - Supply of services for consideration - Definition - Transport of workers by the employer. - Case C-258/95.
European Court reports 1997 Page I-05577
Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
1 Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Supply of services for consideration - Definition - Transport provided for employees to their place of work by the employer free of charge in the absence of any real connection either with the work performed or the wages received - Excluded
(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 2(1))
2 Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Supply of services for consideration - Definition - Private use of business goods - Included - Limits
(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 6(2))
Summary3 Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes is to be interpreted as meaning that an employer who provides transport for employees free of charge from their homes to the workplace where they are more than a specified distance apart, in the absence of any real connection either with the work performed or the wages received, does not effect a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of that provision.
4 Article 6(2) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 is to be interpreted as meaning that transport provided for employees free of charge by the employer between their homes and the workplace in a company vehicle serves, in principle, the employees' private purposes and thus serves purposes other than those of the business. However, that provision does not apply when, having regard to certain circumstances, such as the difficulty of finding other suitable means of transport and changes in the place of work, the requirements of the business make it necessary for the employer to provide transport for employees, in which case the supply of those transport services is not effected for purposes other than those of the business. The fact that the employer does not convey the employees in its own vehicles but commissions one of its employees to provide the transport using his own private vehicle is not relevant in that respect.
PartiesIn Case C-258/95,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Julius Fillibeck Söhne GmbH & Co. KG
and
Finanzamt Neustadt
on the interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 6(2) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),
THE COURT
(Fifth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: P. Léger,
Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
- Julius Fillibeck Söhne GmbH & Co. KG, by Klaus Heininger, accountant and tax adviser,
- Finanzamt Neustadt, by Reinhard Preuninger, Oberregierungsrat,
- the German Government, by Ernst Röder, Ministerialrat at the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, and Bernd Kloke, Oberregierungsrat at the same Ministry, acting as Agents,
- the United Kingdom Government, by Stephen Braviner, of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, acting as Agent, and Nicholas Paines, Barrister,
- the Commission of the European Communities, by Jürgen Grunwald, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing the oral observations of Julius Fillibeck Söhne GmbH & Co. KG, represented by Klaus Heininger, of the Finanzamt Neustadt, represented by Werner Widmann, Leitender Ministerialrat at the Ministry of Finance of Rheinland-Pfalz, and of the Commission, represented by Jürgen Grunwald, at the hearing on 5 December 1996,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 January 1997,
gives the following
Judgment
Grounds1 By order of 11 May 1995, which was received at the Court on 31 July 1995, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty three questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 6(2) 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, hereinafter `the Sixth Directive').
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta delivered on 27 January 2022.
...EU:C:1989:262 , paragraph 12). See also recital 30 of the VAT Directive . To that effect, see also judgments of 16 October 1997, Fillibeck (C‑258/95, EU:C:1997:491 , paragraph 25); of 20 January 2005, Hotel Scandic Gåsabäck ( C‑412/03 , EU:C:2005:47 , paragraph 23); and of 11 December 20......
-
RCI Europe v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
...1988, Naturally Yours Cosmetics (230/87, Rec. p. 6365, point 11); Tolsma (précité note 15, point 14); du 16 octobre 1997, Fillibeck (C‑258/95, Rec. p. I‑5577, point 12); Kennemer Golf (précité note 15, point 39); du 19 juin 2003, First Choice Holidays (C‑149/01, Rec. p. I‑6289, point 30); d......
-
QM v Finanzamt Saarbrücken.
...deve rinunciare in cambio della prestazione erogata dal datore di lavoro (v., in tal senso, sentenze del 16 ottobre 1997, Fillibeck, C‑258/95, EU:C:1997:491, punti 14 e 15, nonché del 29 luglio 2010, Astra Zeneca UK, C‑40/09, EU:C:2010:450, punto 31 Nel caso di specie, il giudice del rinvio......
-
Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland.
...47). 26 – Arrêts du 8 mars 1988, Apple and Pear Development Council (102/86, Rec. p. 1443, points 11 et 12); du 16 octobre 1997, Fillibeck (C‑258/95, Rec. p. I‑5577, point 12), et Commission/France, précité (points 34 et 35). 27 – Arrêt Apple and Pear Development Council, précité (points 11......