- 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-164/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 14(2)(b) — Supply of goods — Motor vehicles — Finance lease with an option to purchase)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CA0164
62016CA0164
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
27.11.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 402/5
(Case C-164/16) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 14(2)(b) - Supply of goods - Motor vehicles - Finance lease with an option to purchase))
(2017/C 402/05)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Defendant: Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Ltd
Operative part of the judgment
The words ‘contract for hire which provides that in the normal course of events ownership is to pass at the latest upon payment of the final instalment’, used in Article 14(2)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as applying to a leasing contract with an option to purchase if it can be inferred from the financial terms of the contract that exercising the option appears to be the only economically rational choice that the lessee will be able to make at the appropriate time if the contract is performed for its full term, which it is for the national court to ascertain.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.