- 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-568/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 September 2017 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, L.W. Geelen
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CN0568
62017CN0568
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
11.12.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 424/23
(Case C-568/17)
(2017/C 424/33)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Defendant: L.W. Geelen
Questions referred
(a)Should the first indent of Article 9(2)(c) of the Sixth Directive, or Article 52(a) of the VAT Directive of 2006 (version to 1 January 2010), respectively, be interpreted as also covering the provision, in return for payment, of live interactive erotic webcam sessions?
(b)If question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative, should the phrase ‘the place where those services are physically carried out’ in Article 9(2)(c) of the Sixth Directive or ‘the place where the services are physically carried out’ in the introductory sentence of Article 52 of the VAT Directive of 2006, respectively, then be interpreted as meaning that the decisive factor is the place where the models perform in front of the webcamera or the place where the visitors view the images, or could even some other place be envisaged?
Should the twelfth indent of Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Directive or Article 56(1)(k) of the VAT Directive of 2006 (version to 1 January 2010), read in conjunction with Article 11 of the VAT Regulation of 2005, be interpreted as meaning that the provision, in return for payment, of live interactive erotic webcam sessions can be deemed to be an ‘electronically supplied service’?
3.
If both question 1(a) and question 2 are answered in the affirmative, and the designation of the place of the service according to the relevant provisions of the directives concerned results in a different outcome, how should the place of the service then be determined?
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation 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).
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Council Regulation (EC) No 1777/2005 of 17 October 2005 laying down implementing measures for Directive 77/388/EEC on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2005 L 288, p. 1).