- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-406/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2020 — Phantasialand v Finanzamt Brühl
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0406
62020CN0406
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
7.12.2020
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 423/25
(Case C-406/20)
(2020/C 423/37)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Phantasialand
Defendant: Finanzamt Brühl
Questions referred
1.Can the listing of fairs and amusement parks in Annex III(7) to Directive 2006/112, (1) in conjunction with Article 98(2) thereof, be relied on as the basis for drawing a distinction in the form of the taxation of a theme park at the standard rate, even though the term ‘amusement park’ covers both static and mobile fairground undertakings?
2.Is the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to the effect that different services may be dissimilar on account of their context, applicable to the provision of services by mobile fairground entertainers and by static fairground undertakings in the form of theme parks?
3.In the event that the second question is answered in the negative: Does the ‘point of view of the average consumer’, which, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is an essential element of the principle of fiscal neutrality, constitute a ‘conceptual perspective’ not amenable to the gathering of evidence based on expert opinion?
(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).