On November 29 , 2022, the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) referred a case to the ECJ. The facts and questions of the case are not yet available on Curia. However, the case number is C-69/23.
Pursuant to the provisions of art. 267 TFEU, refers the Court of Justice of the European Community with the following preliminary questions:
- 1. In order to interpret and uniformly apply Community law, digital content provision services of the type presented in the main litigation, consisting of interactive sessions with Erotic content, filmed and broadcast in real time via electronic means/internet, provided by a taxable person in an EU member state (PI video chat studio) to another taxable person located in another EU member state (P2, online live-streaming platform), represents an intra-community service provision, which falls under the general rule established by the provisions of art. 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of November 28, 2006 on the common system of value added tax [VAT Directive], or constitutes granting access to an entertainment event, within the meaning of art. 53 of the VAT Directive?
- 2. In the interpretation and application of the provisions of article 53 of Directive 2006/1 12/EC of the Council of November 28, 2006 on the common system of] value added tax [VAT Directive] and article 32 paragraph I of the Implementing Regulation ( EU) no. 282/201 1 of the Council of 15 2011 establishing measures to implement the VAT Directive, which is considered the place where the respective events actually take place in the case of activities consisting of interactive sessions with erotic content, filmed and broadcast in real time via electronic means/internet (specific to video chat activities) of the type presented in the main litigation, in the event that:
- a) the natural person (the model) and the video chat studio,
- b) the platform of live-streaming and c) is the natural person who pays for access to these live-streaming services (the end customer) located in different member states/third countries?
- 3. Depending on the answer to the first two questions, in which of the three member states of the European Union must the declaration and, respectively, the payment of the value added tax related to the provision of services be made?
- 4. The VAT Directive and the principle of avoiding double taxation oppose a national fiscal regulation, such as the provisions of art. 307 of Law 227/2015 in which: the same services mentioned above were classified by the tax authorities of the state in which the beneficiary of the services is located (P2), by a fiscal administrative act that remained final by not appealing to the court, as intra-community services under the scope of general rules, provided by art. 44 of the VAT Directive? It is possible to achieve, by the subsequently notified or self-notified tax bodies of a state, a different legal qualification of the cross-border services that are the subject of the fiscal inspection in this state, than the legal qualification already achieved for the same services, through a remaining fiscal administrative act definitively by not appealing to the court, by the tax authorities from another state, initially notified or self-notified, a situation that has the effect of double taxation in terms of VAT, or the fiscal bodies that are subsequently notified or self-notified are related to the legal qualification achieved for the respective cross-border services which was made by the fiscal authorities initially invested with this problem and which remained definitive by not contesting, without being able to change it?
- B) Depending on the answer to the previous questions, what is the place of provision of services within the meaning of the VAT Directive and the principle of avoiding double taxation in a situation like the one in the main litigation?
Source portal.just.ro
See also
Similar ECJ Cases
