ECJ C-677/21 (Fluvius Antwerpen) – Questions – Is the unlawful use of energy a supply of goods?

On November 11, 2022, the ECJ received a request from a preliminary ruling from Belgium.

Context:

Article in the EU VAT Directive

Articles 9(1), 13(1) 14(1), 14(2)(a) of the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC.

Article 9 (Taxable person)
1. ‘Taxable person’ shall mean any person who, independently, carries out in any place any economic activity, whatever the purpose or results of that activity.
Any activity of producers, traders or persons supplying services, including mining and agricultural activities and activities of the professions, shall be regarded as ‘economic activity’. The exploitation of tangible or intangible property for the purposes of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis shall in particular be regarded as an economic activity.

Article 13 (Public bodies)
1. States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law shall not be regarded as taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities, even where they collect dues, fees, contributions or payments in connection with those activities or transactions.
However, when they engage in such activities or transactions, they shall be regarded as taxable persons in respect of those activities or transactions where their treatment as non-taxable persons would lead to significant distortions of competition.
In any event, bodies governed by public law shall be regarded as taxable persons in respect of the activities listed in Annex I, provided that those activities are not carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible.

Article 14 (Taxable transaction – Supply fof goods)
1. ‘Supply of goods’ shall mean the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner.
2. In addition to the transaction referred to in paragraph 1, each of the following shall be regarded as a supply of goods:
(a) the transfer, by order made by or in the name of a public authority or in pursuance of the law, of the ownership of property against payment of compensation;

Facts

MX was summoned by the distribution network operator, Fluvius Antwerpen (‘Fluvius’), to pay the sum of EUR 813.41 (inclusive of VAT), together with default interest in the amount of EUR 4.80 as well as statutory interest from the time of the summons in respect of the consumption of electricity … for the period from 7 May 2017 to 7 August 2019.
That invoicing did not take place because MX was supplied with electricity by Fluvius pursuant the latter’s public service obligation under Article 5.2.3(1) of the Energiebesluit (Energy Decision). This provision stipulates that if a domestic customer’s contract is terminated by his or her energy supplier, for example for non-payment, and this customer does not enter into a new contract with another energy supplier, he or she will be supplied by the distribution network operator.
This invoicing took place because MX used electricity at the address at which he resides … without having concluded a contract for such use with a commercial energy supplier and without having had a contract previously terminated by a (different) commercial energy supplier at that address and, as a result, was supplied by Fluvius on the basis of the public service obligation. In other words, the invoicing took place after Fluvius had established, with the passage of time, that actual usage, referred to as unlawful usage. Based on a comparison between the meter reading at the start of the unlawful usage and the meter reading at the end of the unlawful usage, an amount of EUR 813.41, which included EUR 131.45 in VAT, was invoiced for the usage over that period.
Given the legal basis for the invoicing, namely the unlawful usage, the vrederechter (magistrate) asked Fluvius to take a position on the chargeability of VAT on the amount invoiced.

Questions

Must Article 2(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC, ¹ be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy is a supply of goods, being the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner?

If not, must Article 14(2)(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy is a supply of goods, being a transfer, by order made by or in the name of a public authority or in pursuance of the law, of the ownership of property against payment of compensation?

Must Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that, if Fluvius Antwerpen is entitled to compensation for unlawfully used energy, it is to be regarded as a taxable person since the unlawful usage is the result of an “economic activity” of Fluvius Antwerpen, namely the exploitation of tangible property for the purposes of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis?

If Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy constitutes an economic activity, must the first paragraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC then be interpreted as meaning that Fluvius Antwerpen is a public authority and, if so, must the third paragraph of Article 13(1) then be interpreted as meaning that the unlawful usage of energy is the result of an activity of Fluvius Antwerpen that is not carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible?

AG Opinion

Decision

Summary

Source