Provisional text

17 October 2024 (*1)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 14 and 15 – Electric vehicle charging – Charging using devices provided by a company and allowing access to a network of charging points operated by different operators – Classification of the transaction for VAT purposes – ‘Supply of goods’ – Transfer made under commission contracts )

In Case C‑60/23,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court, Sweden), made by decision of 3 February 2023, received at the Court on 6 February 2023, in the proceedings

Digital Charging Solutions GmbH,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of I. Jarukaitis, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, D. Gratsias (Rapporteur), and E. Regan Judges,

Advocate General: T. Ćapeta,

Registrar: A. Lamote, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 7 February 2024,

* Language of the case: English.

EN ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– Waltham Abbey Residents Association, by J. Devlin, Senior Counsel, J. Kenny, Barrister-at-Law, and D. Healy, Solicitor,

– Digital Charging Solutions GmbH, by U. Grefberg,

– the Swedish Government, by H. Eklinder and F.-L. Göransson, acting as Agents,

– the Hungarian Government, by Zs. Biró-Tóth and Z. Fehér, acting as Agents,

– the European Commission, by M. Björkland and M. Herold, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

1This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 14 and 15 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009 (OJ 2010 L 10, p. 14) (’Directive 2006/112’).

2The request has been made in proceedings between Digital Charging Solutions GmbH, a company incorporated under German law, and the Skatteverket (Tax Agency, Sweden) concerning the validity of the latter’s tax ruling dated 8 April 2022 (‘the tax ruling’).

Legal context

European Union law

3Recitals 7 to 9 of Directive 2006/112 state:

‘(7) Development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. …

(8) Projects belonging to certain types have significant effects on the environment and those projects should, as a rule, be subject to a systematic assessment.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

(9) Projects of other types may not have significant effects on the environment in every case and those projects should be assessed where the Member States consider that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.’

4Article 2(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment. Those projects are defined in Article 4.’

5Under Article 3(1) of that directive:

‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors:

…

(b)biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under [Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193) (“Directive 92/43”)] and Directive 2009/147/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7)];

…’

6Article 4 of Directive 2006/112 provides:

‘1. Subject to Article 2(4), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

(a) a case-by-case examination;

(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State.

Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in points (a) and (b).

Where a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account. Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under paragraphs 4 and 5 or an environmental impact assessment, and/or thresholds or criteria to determine when projects shall in any case be made subject to an environmental impact assessment without undergoing a determination set out under paragraphs 4 and 5.

Where Member States decide to require a determination for projects listed in Annex II, the developer shall provide information on the characteristics of the project and its likely significant effects on the environment. The detailed list of information to be provided is specified in Annex IIA. The developer shall take into account, where relevant, the available results of other relevant assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The developer may also provide a description of any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

The competent authority shall make its determination, on the basis of the information provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 4 taking into account, where relevant, the results of preliminary verifications or assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The determination shall made available to the public and:

(a) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is required, state the main reasons for requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III; or

(b) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is not required, state the main reasons for not requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III, and, where proposed by the developer, state any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

Member States shall ensure that the competent authority makes its determination as soon as possible and within a period of time not exceeding 90 days from the date on which the developer has submitted all the information required pursuant to paragraph 4. In exceptional cases, for instance relating to the nature, complexity, location or size of the project, the competent authority may extend that deadline to make its determination; in that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when its determination is expected.’

Annex II.A of that directive contains the list of ‘information to be provided by the developer on the projects listed in Annex II’. That list reads as follows:

‘1. A description of the project, including in particular:

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and, where relevant, of demolition works;

(b) a description of the location of the project, with particular regard to the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected.

(a) the expected residues and emissions and the production of waste, where relevant;

(b) the use of natural resources, in particular soil, land, water and biodiversity.

Annex III to that directive sets out the ‘criteria to determine whether the projects listed in Annex II should be subject to an environmental impact assessment’.

Directive 2014/52

9Recitals 11 and 29 of Directive 2014/52 state:

‘(11) The measures taken to avoid, prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under [Directive 92/43] and Directive 2009/147 …, should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity, in accordance with the [European] Union’s commitments in the context of the [United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992,] and the objectives and actions of the Union Biodiversity Strategy up to 2020 laid down in the [Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions] of 3 May 2011 entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ [(COM(2011) 244 final)]

…

(29) When determining whether significant effects on the environment are likely to be caused by a project, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and should take into account information that could be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening determination, in particular where no environmental impact assessment is required. Moreover, taking into account unsolicited comments that might have been received from other sources, such as members of the public or public authorities, even though no formal consultation is required at the screening stage, constitutes good administrative practice.’

Directive 92/43

10Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 provides:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.’

11Article 12(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range, prohibiting:

(a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;

(b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;

(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;

(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.’

Point (a) of Annex IV to that directive mentions ‘all species’ of bats belonging to the suborder of ‘microchiroptera’.

Irish law

In stating that the users of electric vehicles choose the quantity, time and place of that charging as well as the manner of use of the electricity, the second question reflects that court’s queries as to the scope of the case-law referred to in paragraph 16 above, according to which, given those circumstances, Digital Charging Solutions could be viewed not as supplying a good to those users but as, in reality, performing the functions of a supplier of credit in respect of those users.

26It should be noted in that regard that the concept of ‘supply of goods’ does not refer to the transfer of ownership in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the applicable national law, but covers any transfer of tangible property by one party which empowers the other party actually to dispose of it as if that party were its owner (judgments of 18 July 2013, Evita-K, C‑78/12, EU:C:2013:486, paragraph 33, and of 21 November 2013, Dixons Retail, C‑494/12, EU:C:2013:758, paragraph 20).

27The transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112 does not require the party to whom the tangible property is transferred to be in physical possession of it, or that the tangible property be physically transported to that party and/or physically received by that party (order of 15 July 2015, Koela-N, C‑159/14, EU:C:2015:513, paragraph 38).

28Thus, the same goods may be the subject of two successive sales within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112 when they are transported directly, on instructions, from the first vendor to the second person acquiring the goods (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 July 2019, Kuršu zeme, C‑273/18, EU:C:2019:588, paragraph 36).

29Those assessments are also valid for electricity which, as observed in paragraph 22 above, is treated as tangible goods under Article 15(1) of Directive 2006/112.

30That being so, it should be recalled, in order to answer the second question, that taking into account the economic reality which is, in principle, reflected in the contractual agreements, constitutes a fundamental criterion for the application of the common VAT system (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 February 1997, DFDS, C‑260/95, EU:C:1997:77, paragraph 23, and of 28 February 2023, Fenix International, C‑695/20, EU:C:2023:127, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited).

31In that regard, it is apparent from the information provided by the referring court that the operators of the charging points have contractual connections only with Digital Charging Solutions and that, according to the appurtenant agreements, that company provides users who have chosen to do business with it with cards and an application for authentication giving access to that network, thereby enabling users to charge their electric vehicles at points which are part of that network. As stated in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, the operators that operate those charging points invoice Digital Charging Solutions monthly for the cost of the electricity supplied and the latter in turn invoices the users, also monthly, for that cost, to which is added payment for connected services, through a fee, the amount of which is not contingent on the quantity of electricity supplied (and therefore the cost of the electricity) or on the number of charging sessions.

32As observed, in essence, by the Advocate General in point 39 of her Opinion, the circumstances in the case in the main proceedings differ from those of the cases which gave rise to the judgments of 6 February 2003, Auto Lease Holland (C‑185/01, EU:C:2003:73), and of 15 May 2019, Vega International Car Transport and Logistic (C‑235/18, EU:C:2019:412).

33In that regard, as regards the first of those cases, the Court observes that the vehicle fuelling the transaction at issue in that case was part of a leasing contract and that, in that context, the Court took account of the fact that, unlike the invoicing methods at issue in the present case, the monthly payments made to the leasing company were merely an advance, with the actual consumption being established at year-end, and went on to find that the fuel management agreement was a financing contract, if only a partial one, for the purchase of fuel and that the leasing company was, in reality, acting as a supplier of credit vis-à-vis the lessee (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 February 2003, Auto Lease Holland, C‑185/01, EU:C:2003:73, paragraphs 35 and 36). As regards the second case, suffice it to note that nor are the circumstances at issue in the main proceedings in the present case analogous to those in which a parent company decides that its subsidiaries’ fuel purchases are to be effected using fuel cards provided by it to them, which cards may be used at service stations of the suppliers indicated by that parent company (judgment of 15 May 2019, Vega International Car Transport and Logistic, C‑235/18, EU:C:2019:412, paragraphs 14 and 36).

34The absence of a credit mechanism enabling electricity purchases to be pre-financed is corroborated by the methods for fixing the payment stipulated between the users of the charging points and Digital Charging Solutions. As observed in paragraph 31 above, nor does that company collect any payment consisting in a percentage of the amount of invoiced electricity consumption, but rather a fixed fee, independent of the quantity of electricity supplied to the user or the number of charging sessions.

35It follows that although, as was the situation in the cases which gave rise to the judgments referred to in paragraph 33 above, it is the user who decides when, where and how much electricity he or she purchases, the guidance provided by those judgments are not transposable to the context of the main proceedings.

36In the present case, as emphasised by the Advocate General in point 52 of her Opinion, the contractual stipulations between the charging point operators and Digital Charging Solutions, on the one hand, and between the latter and the users of those points, on the other, imply, according to the information provided by the referring court, that it is the users who initiate, at their discretion, the supply of electricity at the place, time and in the quantity of their choice. Digital Charging Solutions, for its part, does not undertake with the operators of the network comprising those points to purchase, autonomously and independently of the users’ decisions, any quantity whatsoever of electricity, but seems to play the role of an intermediary, as evidenced by the very wording of the second question.

37In those circumstances, it is appropriate to examine that configuration of contractual relationships in the light of Article 14(2)(c) of Directive 2006/112, which governs the transfer of goods pursuant to a contract under which commission is payable on purchase or sale and which constitutes, as against the general definition set out in Article 14(1) thereof, a lex specialis, the conditions for the application of which are independent of those in paragraph 1 (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 February 2021, Gmina Wrocław (Transformation of the right of usufruct), C‑604/19, EU:C:2021:132, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited).

38The application of Article 14(2)(c) of Directive 2006/112 requires two conditions to be satisfied. First, there has to be an agency in performance of which the commission agent acts on behalf of the principal in the supply of goods and, second, the supplies of goods acquired by the commission agent and the supplies of goods sold or transferred to the principal must be identical (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 November 2020, ITH Comercial Timișoara, C‑734/19, EU:C:2020:919, paragraph 51).

39If those two conditions are satisfied, Article 14(2)(c) of Directive 2006/112 creates a legal fiction of two identical supplies of goods made consecutively, which fall within the scope of VAT. Under that fiction, a taxable person who, acting in his or her own name but on behalf of another person, takes part in a supply of services, is deemed to have received and supplied those services himself or herself (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 November 2020, ITH Comercial Timișoara, C‑734/19, EU:C:2020:919, paragraphs 49 and 50 and the case-law cited).

40In such a scenario, under Article 14(2)(c) of Directive 2006/112, the taxable person in question plays a certain economic role in the supply of goods in question, which enables that person to be categorised as an intermediary acting in his or her own name but on behalf of someone else (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 February 2009, Athesia Druck, C‑1/08, EU:C:2009:108, paragraphs 35 and 36).

41It should also be noted that it is on the nature of a commission contract for the purchase of electricity for the purpose of charging an electric vehicle that the choice of quality, quantity, time and manner of use of the electricity is up to the user of the charging point and not the commission agent.

42In the present case, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the connections at issue in the present case may be analysed as commission contracts for purchase concluded between the operators of charging point networks, as principals, and Digital Charging Solutions, as the commission agent, under which those operators confer on the latter an agency to sell electricity, in its own name but on their behalf, to electric vehicle users. In any event, subject to factual verifications which it is for the referring court to carry out, the connections at issue in the main proceedings may also be categorised as commission contracts for purchase concluded between the users of charging points as principals, and Digital Charging Solutions, as the commission agent, under which those users confer on the latter an agency to purchase from the charging point operators, in its own name but on their behalf, electricity intended to be supplied to them for charging requirements for their electric vehicles.

43It follows that the first condition of application of Article 14(2)(c) of Directive 2006/112 seems to be satisfied.

44The second condition of application of that provision also appears to be satisfied, since the supplies of goods deemed to be acquired by the commission agent and the supplies of goods sold or transferred by the commission agent are identical.

45In that regard, since the dispute in the main proceedings also concerns the question whether the supply by Digital Charging Solutions constitutes a complex transaction principally characterised by the delivery of electricity or whether that supply is composed of two distinct supplies, consisting in a supply of electricity and a supply of access to the charging points network, it is appropriate to identify the decisive factors for the purposes of such a categorisation and to set out to what extent that categorisation is liable to lead to potential consequences for the second condition of application of that provision.

46It should be noted that, where a transaction comprises a bundle of elements and acts, regard must be had to all the circumstances in which that transaction takes place in order to determine, first, whether the transaction gives rise, for the purposes of VAT, to two or more distinct supplies or to one single supply and, second, whether, in the latter case, that single supply is to be regarded as a ‘supply of goods’ or a ‘supply of services’ (judgment of 20 April 2023, Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej, C‑282/22, EU:C:2023:312, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

47In particular, while it follows from the second subparagraph of Article 1(2) of Directive 2006/112 that each transaction must normally be regarded as distinct and independent, a transaction which comprises a single supply from an economic point of view should not be artificially split, so as not to distort the functioning of the VAT system. In that regard, it must be held that there is a single supply where two or more elements or acts supplied by the taxable person to the customer are so closely linked that they form, objectively, a single, indivisible economic supply, which it would be artificial to split (judgment of 20 April 2023, Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej, C‑282/22, EU:C:2023:312, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).

48Moreover, in certain circumstances, several formally distinct supplies, which could be provided separately and thus give rise, in turn, to taxation or exemption, must be considered to be a single transaction when they are not independent. That is the case where, inter alia, one or more elements are to be regarded as constituting the principal supply, while other elements are to be regarded, by contrast, as one or more ancillary supplies which share the tax treatment of the principal supply. In particular, a supply must be regarded as ancillary to a principal supply if it does not constitute for customers an end in itself but a means of better enjoying the principal supply (judgment of 20 April 2023, Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej, C‑282/22, EU:C:2023:312, paragraphs 29 and 30 and the case-law cited).

49In the context of the cooperation established by Article 267 TFEU, it is for the national courts to determine whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, the supply concerned constitutes a single supply and to make all definitive findings of fact in that regard (judgment of 20 April 2023, Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej, C‑282/22, EU:C:2023:312, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited). However, it is for the Court to provide the national courts with all the guidance as to the interpretation of European Union law which may be of assistance in adjudicating on the case pending before them (judgment of 18 April 2024, Companhia União de Crédito Popular, C‑89/23, EU:C:2024:333, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).

50In the present case, as observed in paragraph 12 above, Digital Charging Solutions invoices users monthly, first, for the cost of electricity purchased by them to charge their vehicles and, second, a fixed fee by way of payment for access to the charging points network, information on electricity prices and on availability of charging points, as well as functions for locating charging points and route planning.

51In that regard, as observed in paragraph 30 above, taking into account the economic reality as, in principle, reflected in the contractual agreements constitutes a fundamental criterion for the application of the common VAT system.

52Consequently, the question whether the supply of electricity by a company such as Digital Charging Solutions for the purpose of charging an electric vehicle forms, together with the other supplies described in paragraph 50 above, a single complex transaction may be contingent on the conditions in which the payment for that supply and those services falls due under the appurtenant contractual agreements.

* * *

Thus, services providing access to charging points, technical support, reservation of a charging point, consultation of charging or credit accumulation history in a digital portfolio which are not provided in return for payment of a fee that is fixed and independent of any supply of electricity may be considered as forming, together with that supply, a single complex transaction for the purposes of VAT (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 April 2023, <i>Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej</i>, C‑282/22, EU:C:2023:312, paragraph 32).

54However, as observed by the Advocate General in points 24 to 29 of her Opinion, where payment for those other supplies must be paid by the user in the form of a fixed fee which is separate and payable on a monthly basis, irrespective of any supply of electricity, it must be held, subject to verifications which it is for the referring court to carry out, that those services are distinct and independent of the supply of electricity properly speaking.

55In such circumstances, considering that the services in question are indissociable from the supply of electricity or merely accessory thereto, so as to form, together with that supply, a single complex transaction, would amount to artificially disregarding the economic reality in two respects. This concerns, first, the monthly periods during which the user is not supplied electricity whilst still being required to pay, in accordance with the contractual stipulations binding him or her to Digital Charging Solutions, the fixed fee relating to those services. It concerns, second, the fact that, according to those stipulations, that fee, which is invoiced as a separate item, does not vary according to the quantity of electricity supplied to the user or according to the number of charging sessions coming within the monthly period.

56Moreover, in so far as the user may charge his or her vehicle at charging points located in a number of Member States and, therefore, the place of supply of electricity is liable to vary with the different purchases made, considering those services as constituting an accessory element of a single complex transaction the principle supply of which consists in the supply of electricity then seems even more artificial in terms of economic realities.

57In those circumstances, as observed by the Advocate General in point 68 of her Opinion, the supply of electricity properly speaking made by Digital Charging Solutions to the user is no different from the supply of electricity by the charging point operator to that company, with the result that the second condition of Article 14(2)(c) of Directive 2006/112 is satisfied.

58However, it cannot be inferred therefrom that that second condition is not satisfied if the referring court were to take the view that the supply made by Digital Charging Solutions constitutes a single complex transaction principally characterised by the supply of electricity.

59As observed in paragraphs 47 and 48 above, such a categorisation results from the fact that the other services provided by that company are considered to be indissociable from the supply of electricity or merely accessory thereto. Consequently, those services, which justify the intermediary’s payment, are merely intended to enable the electricity which was the object of the supply of goods deemed made by the operator of that charging point to that intermediary to be supplied to the user of a charging point.

60In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that Article 14 of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with Article 15(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the charging of an electric vehicle at a network of public charging stations to which the user has access through a subscription concluded with a company other than the operator of that network entails that the electricity consumed is deemed to have been supplied, first, by the operator of that network to the company offering access thereto and, second, by that company to that user, even if the latter chooses the quantity, time and place of that charging as well as the manner of use of the electricity, when that company acts in its own name but on behalf of the user under a commission contract within the meaning of Article 14(2)(c) of Directive 2006/112.

Costs

61Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, read in conjunction with Article 15(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended,

must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of electricity for the purposes of charging an electric vehicle at a charging point forming part of a public network of such points constitutes a supply of goods within the meaning of the former provision.

Article 14 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2009/162, read in conjunction with Article 15(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended,

must be interpreted as meaning that the charging of an electric vehicle at a network of public charging points to which the user has access through a subscription concluded with a company other than the operator of that network entails that the electricity consumed is deemed to have been supplied, first, by the operator of that network to the company offering access thereto and, second, by that company to that user, even if the latter chooses the quantity, time and place of that charging as well as the manner of use of the electricity, when that company acts in its own name but on behalf of the user under a commission contract within the meaning of Article 14(2)(c) of Directive 2006/112, as amended.

[Signatures]

* * *

(*1) Language of the case: Swedish.