Jun 6

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case C-49/17, Koppers Denmark (Taxation of energy products and electricity – Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

1.     Is Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted as meaning that the consumption of self-produced energy products for the production of other energy products is tax exempt in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the energy products produced are not used as motor fuels or as heating fuels?

2.     Is Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may restrict the scope of the exemption so as to cover only consumption of an energy product used in the production of an equivalent energy product (i.e. an energy product which, like the energy product consumed, is also subject to tax)?

The opinion in this case as delivered on February 22, 2018 by Advocate General Szpunar can be found here

Jun 7

Opinion of the Advocate General expected to be delivered in Case C-295/17, MEO – Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia (VAT – Interpretation of Articles 2(1)(c), 64(1), 66(a) and 73 of Directive 2006/112/EC)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

1.     Must Articles 2(1)(c), 64(1), 66(a) and 73 of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that a telecommunications operator (television, internet, mobile network and fixed network) is liable for value added tax as a result of charging its customers –– in a case of termination, for reasons attributable to the customer, of a contract containing an obligation to be bound by the contract for a defined term (tie-in period) before the end of that period –– a pre-determined amount, corresponding to the basic monthly amount payable by the customer under the contract, multiplied by the number of monthly payments that are still to be made before the end of the tie-in period, the operator having, at the time when that amount is invoiced and independently of its actual payment, already ceased to provide the services, where:

(a)   the contractual purpose of the amount invoiced is to deter the customer from disregarding the tie-in period which he has undertaken to observe and to make good the damage sustained by the operator as a result of the failure to complete the tie-in period –– in particular, on account of loss of the profit the operator would have obtained if the contract had continued until the end of the period, as well as on account of the agreement to charge lower tariffs, the supply of equipment or other offers, free of charge or at discounted prices, and the costs of advertising and of acquiring customers;

(b)   contracts negotiated with a tie-in period entail higher remuneration for the commercial intermediaries who obtained them than contracts obtained by them without a tie-in period and that remuneration is calculated, in each case (that is, as regards contracts with or without a tie-in), on the basis of the amount set for monthly payments in the contracts obtained;

(c)    the amount invoiced may be classified, under national law, as a penalty clause?

2.     Is the answer to the first question liable to change in the event that one or more of the situations described in points (a), (b) and (c) of that question does not apply?