Parties
|
|
In Case C‑225/11,
|
Fil-Kawża C‑225/11,
|
|
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom), made by decision of 9 May 2011, received at the Court on 13 May 2011, in the proceedings
|
li għandha bħala suġġett talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari skont l-Artikolu 267 TFUE, imressqa mill-Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (ir-Renju Unit), permezz ta’ deċiżjoni tad-9 ta’ Mejju 2011, li waslet fil-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fit-13 ta’ Mejju 2011, fil-proċedura
|
|
The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
|
The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
|
|
v
|
vs
|
|
Able UK Ltd ,
|
Able UK Ltd,
|
|
THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),
|
IL-QORTI TAL-ĠUSTIZZJA (It-Tmien Awla),
|
|
composed of A. Prechal (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann and L. Bay Larsen, Judges,
|
komposta minn A. Prechal (Relatur), President tal-Awla, K. Schiemann u L. Bay Larsen, Imħallfin,
|
|
Advocate General: P. Mengozzi,
|
Avukat Ġenerali: P. Mengozzi,
|
|
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
|
Reġistratur: A. Calot Escobar,
|
|
having regard to the written procedure,
|
wara li rat il-proċedura bil-miktub,
|
|
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
|
wara li kkunsidrat l-osservazzjonijiet ippreżentati:
|
|
– the United Kingdom Government, by L. Seeboruth, acting as Agent,
|
– għall-Gvern tar-Renju Unit, minn L. Seeboruth, bħala aġent,
|
|
– the Polish Government, by M. Szpunar, acting as Agent,
|
– għall-Gvern Pollakk, minn M. Szpunar, bħala aġent,
|
|
– the European Commission, by R. Lyal and C. Soulay, acting as Agents,
|
– għall-Kummissjoni Ewropea, minn R. Lyal u C. Soulay, bħala aġenti,
|
|
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
|
wara li rat id-deċiżjoni, meħuda wara li nstema’ l-Avukat Ġenerali, li l-kawża tinqata’ mingħajr konklużjonijiet,
|
|
gives the following
|
tagħti l-preżenti
|
|
Judgment
|
Sentenza
|
Grounds
|
|
1. This reference for a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of Article 151(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1. ‘the VAT Directive’).
|
1. It-talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari tirrigwarda l-interpretazzjoni tal-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva tal-Kunsill 2006/112/KE, tat-28 ta’ Novembru 2006, dwar is-sistema komuni ta’ taxxa fuq il-valur miżjud (ĠU L 347, p. 1, iktar ’il quddiem id-“Direttiva VAT”).
|
|
2. The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (‘the Commissioners’) and Able UK Ltd (‘Able’) concerning value added tax (‘VAT’) on services of dismantling obsolete United States Navy (‘US Navy’) ships.
|
2. Din it-talba tressqet fil-kuntest ta’ kawża bejn il-Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (iktar ’il quddiem il-“Commissioners”) u Able UK Ltd (iktar ’il quddiem “Able”) dwar it-taxxa fuq il-valur miżjud (iktar ’il quddiem il-“VAT”) li tapplika għas-servizzi ta’ żmuntaġġ ta’ bastimenti li ma għadhomx jintużaw mill-flotta Amerikana.
|
|
Legal context
|
Il-kuntest ġuridiku
|
|
International law
|
Id-dritt internazzjonali
|
|
3. The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington (United States) on 4 April 1949.
|
3. It-Trattat tal-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana ġie ffirmat f’Washington (l-Istati Uniti) fl-4 ta’ April 1949.
|
|
4. The Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters set up pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in Paris on 28 August 1952 (‘the Protocol on Military Headquarters’), provides in Article VIII(1):
|
4. Il-Protokoll dwar L-Istatut tal-Kwartieri Ġenerali Militari Internazzjonali maħluqa abbażi tat-Trattat tal-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana, iffirmat f’Pariġi fit-28 ta’ Awwissu 1952 (iktar ’il quddiem il-“Protokoll dwar il-Kwartieri Ġenerali Militari”), jipprovdi fl-Artikolu VIII, punt 1 tiegħu:
|
|
‘1. For the purpose of facilitating the establishment, construction, maintenance and operation of Allied Headquarters, these Headquarters shall be relieved, so far as practicable, from duties and taxes, affecting expenditures by them in the interest of common defence and for their official and exclusive benefit, and each Party to the present Protocol shall enter into negotiations with any Allied Headquarters operating in its territory for the purpose of concluding an agreement to give effect to this provision.’
|
“Sabiex jiġi ffaċilitat il-ħolqien, il-kostruzzjoni, il-manutenzjoni u l-funzjonament tal-kwartieri ġenerali interalleati, dawn il-kwartieri ġenerali għandhom ikunu eżenti, sa fejn huwa possibbli, mid-dazji u mit-taxxi marbuta mal-ispejjeż sostnuti minnhom fl-interess tad-difiża komuni u għall-vantaġġ uffiċjali u esklużiv tagħhom, u kull parti f’dan il-protokoll għandha tipproċedi b’negozjati mal-kwartieri ġenerali stabbiliti fit-territorju tagħha sabiex jiġi konkluż ftehim f’dan ir-rigward.”
|
|
European Union law
|
Id-dritt tal-Unjoni
|
|
5. Under Article 151(1) of the VAT Directive:
|
5. Skont l-Artikolu 151(1) tad-Direttiva VAT:
|
|
‘Member States shall exempt the following transactions:
|
“L-Istati Membri għandhom jeżentaw it-transazzjonijiet li ġejjin:
|
|
...
|
[...]
|
|
(c) the supply of goods or services within a Member State which is a party to the North Atlantic Treaty, intended either for the armed forces of other States party to that Treaty for the use of those forces, or of the civilian staff accompanying them, or for supplying their messes or canteens when such forces take part in the common defence effort;
|
(ċ) il-provvista ta’ merkanzija jew servizzi fi Stat Membru li hu parti għat-Trattat ta’ l-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana, intiż għall-użu tal-forzi armati ta’ l-Istati l-oħrajn li huma partijiet għal dak it-Trattat għall-użu ta’ dawk il-forzi, jew ta’ l-impjegati ċivili li jakkompanjawhom, jew għall-provvista tal-mensi jaw tal-kantins tagħhom meta dawn il-forzi jieħdu parti fl-isforz tad-difiża komuni;
|
|
(d) the supply of goods or services to another Member State, intended for the armed forces of any State which is a party to the North Atlantic Treaty, other than the Member State of destination itself, for the use of those forces, or of the civilian staff accompanying them, or for supplying their messes or canteens when such forces take part in the common defence effort;
|
d) il-provvista ta’ merkanzija jew servizzi lil Stat Membru ieħor, maħsub għall-forzi armati ta’ kull Stat Membru li huwa parti għat-Trattat ta’ l-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana, barra l-Istat Membru tal-wasla nnifsu, biex jintuża minn dawk il-forzi, jew mill-impjegati ċivili li jakkumpanjawhom, jew għall-provvista tal-mensi jew tal-kantins tagħhom meta dawn il-forzi jieħdu sehem fl-isforz tad-difiża komuni ;
|
|
...’
|
[...]”
|
|
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred
|
Il-kawża prinċipali u d-domanda preliminari
|
|
6. According to the order for reference, Able had secured a contract with the United States Department of Transportation Maritime Administration to dismantle thirteen vessels which were in the service of the US Navy, but had latterly been consigned to the US Navy’s Reserve Fleet and moored in the James River in Virginia (United States). The contract was in two distinct parts; firstly the ships had to be prepared and then towed from the United States to the United Kingdom. Secondly, once they were secured at Able’s facility on Teesside (United Kingdom), they were to be dismantled. United States Government inspectors were to have a presence on the site throughout the duration of the contract.
|
6. Mid-deċiżjoni tar-rinviju jirriżulta li Able kkonkludiet kuntratt mal-United States Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (Amministrazzjoni marittima tad-dipartiment tat-trasport tal-Istati Uniti) sabiex tiżmonta tlettax-il bastiment li kienu għas-servizz tal-flotta Amerikana, iżda li kienu ġew sussegwentement ittrasferiti lill-flotta ta’ riżerva u ankrati fil-James River, f’Virginia (l-Istati Uniti). Il-kuntratt kien maqsum f’żewġ partijiet distinti. L-ewwel nett, il-bastimenti kellhom jiġu ppreparati u mbagħad irmonkati mill-Istati Uniti sar-Renju Unit. It-tieni nett, ladarba jkunu żgurati fis-sit ta’ Able, li jinsab f’Teesside (ir-Renju Unit), dawn kellhom jiġu żmontati. Spetturi tal-Gvern tal-Istati Uniti kellhom jeżerċitaw preżenza fis-sit matul il-perijodu kollu tal-kuntratt.
|
|
7. In a letter dated 27 August 2008 Able sought a ruling from the Commissioners as to the VAT liability of the dismantling service which it provided. Able argued that the supply was exempt pursuant to the third indent of Article 15(10) of 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), subsequently replaced by Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive.
|
7. Permezz ta’ ittra tas-27 ta’ Awwissu 2008, Able talbet lill-Commissioners biex jiddeċiedu liema skema fil-qasam tal-VAT kellha tiġi applikata għas-servizz ta’ żmuntaġġ li hija kienet tipprovdi. Able kienet issostni li l-provvisti tagħha kienu eżenti skont it-tielet inċiż tal-Artikolu 15(10) tas-Sitt Direttiva tal-Kunsill 77/388/KEE, tas-17 ta’ Mejju 1977, fuq l-armonizzazzjoni tal-liġijiet tal-Istati Membri dwar taxxi fuq id-dħul mill-bejgħ - Sistema komuni ta’ taxxa fuq il-valur miżjud: bażi uniformi ta’ stima (ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 9, Vol. 1, p. 23), li minn dak iż-żmien ’l hawn ġie ssostitwit bl-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT.
|
|
8. The HMRC gave a ruling on 15 October 2008 that Able’s dismantling services were standard rated. Able sought a reconsideration of that decision on 21 October 2008. The Commissioners confirmed their ruling on 18 November 2008 and Able then appealed against that decision to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), which, by a decision of 24 November 2009, held that the services supplied by Able of dismantling ships were exempt.
|
8. Fil-15 ta’ Ottubru 2008, il-Commissioners taw deċiżjoni li tipprovdi li s-servizzi ta’ żmuntaġġ magħmula minn Able kienu suġġetti għar-rata normali tal-VAT. Fil-21 ta’ Ottubru 2008, din il-kumpannija talbet reviżjoni tal-imsemmija deċiżjoni. Peress illi fit-18 ta’ Novembru 2008 il-Commissioners ikkonfermaw din l-istess deċiżjoni, Able ppreżentat rikors quddiem il-First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) li, b’deċiżjoni tal-24 ta’ Novembru 2009, iddeċieda li s-servizzi ta’ żmuntaġġ tal-bastimenti pprovduti minn Able kienu eżenti.
|
|
9. The Commissioners appealed against that decision before the referring court. In their view, Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive applies only to armed forces of a State party to the North Atlantic Treaty visiting a Member State which is another party to the same treaty and only where those forces take part in an activity directly related to the common defence effort.
|
9. Il-Commissioners ippreżentaw appell kontra din id-deċiżjoni quddiem il-qorti tar-rinviju. Fil-fehma tagħhom, l-Artikolu 151(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT japplika biss għall-forzi armati ta’ Stat kontraenti fit-Trattat tal-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana li jkunu fuq żjara fi Stat Membru kontraenti ieħor f’dan l-istess trattat, u biss jekk dawn il-forzi jipparteċipaw f’attività direttament marbuta mal-isforz komuni ta’ difiża.
|
|
10. Taking the view that, in order to decide the dispute before it, it required an interpretation of Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
|
10. Peress illi qies li s-soluzzjoni tal-kawża li biha huwa jinsab adit teħtieġ l-interpretazzjoni tal-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT, l-Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) iddeċieda li jissospendi l-proċedura u li jressaq quddiem il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja d-domanda preliminari segwenti:
|
|
‘Is Article 151(1)(c) of the [VAT Directive] to be interpreted as exempting a supply in the UK of services of dismantling obsolete US Navy ships for the US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration in either or both of the following circumstances:
|
“L-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-[Direttiva VAT] għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li jeżenta l-provvista fir-Renju Unit ta’ servizzi ta’ żmantellar [żmuntaġġ] ta’ bastimenti rtirati mis-servizz tal-US Navy lill-US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration f’waħda jew fiż-żewġ ċirkustanzi segwenti :
|
|
(a) where that supply was not made to a part of the armed forces of a NATO member taking part in the common defence effort or to civilian staff accompanying them;
|
a) meta l-provvista ma tkunx saret lil parti mill-forzi armati ta’ membru tan-NATO [Organizzazzjoni tat-Trattat tal-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana] li jipparteċipa fl-isforz ta’ difiża komuni jew lil persunal ċivili li jakkumpanjhom;
|
|
(b) where that supply was not made to a part of the armed forces of a NATO member stationed in or visiting the UK or to civilian staff accompanying such forces?’
|
b) meta l-provvista ma tkunx saret lil parti mill-forzi armati ta’ membru tan-NATO stazzjonat jew fi żjara fir-Renju Unit jew lil persunal ċivili li jakkumpanja lil tali forzi?”
|
|
The question referred for a preliminary ruling
|
Fuq id-domanda preliminari
|
|
11. According to the order for reference, the origin of the first part of the question referred is to be found in the wording of Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive. That wording allowed the last clause of that provision, that is, the words ‘when such forces take part in the common defence effort’, to be taken to qualify only the part of the sentence immediately preceding them, namely ‘[the supply of goods or services] for supplying their messes or canteens’ and not as qualifying that provision as a whole. The absence, in certain language versions, such as the English and French versions, of a comma before that last clause, bears out such a reading.
|
11. Fir-rigward tal-ewwel parti tad-domanda magħmula, mid-deċiżjoni tar-rinviju jirriżulta li din toriġina mid-diċitura tal-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT. Fil-fatt, din id-diċitura tippermetti li l-aħħar parti ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni, jiġifieri l-kliem “meta dawn il-forzi jieħdu parti fl-isforz tad-difiża komuni”, tinqara bħala li hija marbuta biss mal-parti tal-frażi li tippreċediha immedjatament, jiġifieri “[il-provvista ta’ merkanzija jew servizzi fi Stat Membru] għall-provvista tal-mensi jaw tal-kantins tagħhom”, u mhux bħala marbuta mal-imsemmija dispożizzjoni fl-intier tagħha. In-nuqqas, f’ċerti verżjonijiet lingwistiċi, bħal fil-verżjoni Ingliża u Franċiża, ta’ virgola qabel din l-aħħar parti tal-frażi huwa ta’ natura li jikkonferma din l-interpretazzjoni.
|
|
12. In that connection, it must be pointed out that there is a comma in that place in certain other language versions of that provision, such as the Spanish, Danish and Dutch versions. Accordingly, the presence or absence of a comma cannot be taken as decisive in the interpretation of Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive.
|
12. F’dan ir-rigward, għandu jiġi rrilevat li hemm virgola f’dan l-istess post f’ċerti verżjonijiet lingwistiċi oħra tal-imsemmija dispożizzjoni, bħal fil-verżjoni Spanjola, Daniża, u Olandiża. F’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi, il-preżenza jew in-nuqqas ta’ virgola ma tistax titqies bħala determinanti għall-interpretazzjoni tal-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT.
|
|
13. It is settled case-law that the wording used in one language version of a provision of European Union (‘EU’) law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions in that regard. Such an approach would be incompatible with the requirement for uniform application of EU law. Where there is divergence between the various language versions, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (see, inter alia, Case C‑41/09 Commission v Netherlands [2011] ECR I-0000, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited).
|
13. Fil-fatt, skont ġurisprudenza stabbilita tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, il-kliem użat f’waħda mill-verżjonijiet lingwistiċi ta’ dispożizzjoni tad-dritt tal-Unjoni ma jistax iservi bħala bażi unika għall-interpretazzjoni ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni jew jingħata, f’dan ir-rigward, prijorità fil-konfront tal-verżjonijiet lingwistiċi l-oħra. Approċċ bħal dan ikun inkompatibbli mar-rekwiżit ta’ applikazzjoni uniformi tad-dritt tal-Unjoni. Fil-każ ta’ diverġenza bejn il-verżjonijiet lingwistiċi differenti, id-dispożizzjoni inkwistjoni għandha għaldaqstant tiġi interpretata skont l-istruttura ġenerali u l-għan tal-leġiżlazzjoni li tifforma parti minnha (ara, b’mod partikolari, is-sentenza tat-3 ta’ Marzu 2011, Il-Kummissjoni vs Il-Pajjiżi l-Baxxi, C‑41/09, li għadha ma ġietx ippubblikata fil-Ġabra, punt 44 u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata).
|
|
14. Here, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, VAT exemptions, which include that provided for by Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive, must be interpreted strictly, since they constitute exceptions to the general principle that such tax is to be levied on each service supplied for consideration by a taxable person (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C-116/10 Feltgen and Bacino Charter Company [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
|
14. F’dan ir-rigward, għandu jitfakkar li skont ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja li hija wkoll stabbilita, l-eżenzjonijiet tal-VAT, li fosthom hemm dik stabbilita bl-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT, għandhom jiġu interpretati b’mod restrittiv peress illi dawn jikkostitwixxu eċċezzjonijiet għall-prinċipju ġenerali li kull servizz ipprovdut bi ħlas minn persuna taxxabbli huwa suġġett għal din it-taxxa (ara f’dan is-sens, b’mod partikolari, is-sentenza tat-22 ta’ Diċembru 2010, Feltgen u Bacino Charter Company, C‑116/10, li għadha ma ġietx ippubblikata fil-Ġabra, punt 19 u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata).
|
|
15. An interpretation according to which the last phrase of Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive qualifies only the part of the sentence which immediately precedes it would result in giving the exemption provided for by that provision a scope which was not only wide but also illogical, as the United Kingdom government correctly pointed out.
|
15. Issa, interpretazzjoni li tipprovdi li din l-aħħar parti tal-frażi tal-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT hija biss marbuta mal-aħħar parti li tippreċediha immedjatament twassal biex l-eżenzjoni pprovduta f’din id-dispożizzjoni jkollha kamp ta’ applikazzjoni li mhux biss huwa estiż iżda wkoll, kif ġustament irrileva l-Gvern tar-Renju Unit, inkoerenti.
|
|
16. If such an interpretation were accepted, supplies of goods and services in the Member States party to the North Atlantic Treaty and intended for the armed forces of other States party to that treaty for the use of those forces or of the civilian staff accompanying them would be exempt from VAT in any circumstances, whereas supplies of goods and services for supplying their messes or canteens would be exempt only when those forces take part in the common defence effort. To make such a distinction as regards the scope of the exemption provided for by Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive appears to make no sense.
|
16. Fil-fatt, fil-każ li tali interpretazzjoni tiġi applikata, il-kunsinni ta’ merkanzija u l-provvisti ta’ servizzi magħmula fi Stati Membri kontraenti fit-Trattat tal-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana u intiżi għall-forzi armati ta’ Stati oħra kontraenti f’dan it-trattat għall-użu ta’ dawn il-forzi jew għall-impjegati ċivili li jakkumpanjawhom jkunu f’kull ċirkustanza eżenti mill-VAT, filwaqt li l-kunsinni ta’ merkanzija u l-provvisti ta’ servizzi magħmula għall-provvista tal-mensi jew tal-kantins tagħhom jkunu eżenti biss meta l-imsemmija forzi jipparteċipaw fl-isforz komuni tad-difiża. Issa, tali differenza dwar il-portata tal-eżenzjoni pprovduta fl-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT tidher li hija nieqsa minn kull sens.
|
|
17. Moreover, that provision must be understood in the light of the objective of the exemption it establishes. There is no evidence that that objective was, as argued before the referring court, to prevent the Member States party to the North Atlantic Treaty from enjoying a tax advantage as a result of their membership of NATO. For the rest, as the referring court itself observed, such an objective would imply the existence of a general exemption for supplies of goods and services for the purposes of commitments made under the auspices of NATO, including by the armed forces of the Member State in which that supply of goods or services took place. However, it is clear that Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive does not provide for such a wide-ranging exemption.
|
17. Barra minn hekk, l-imsemmija dispożizzjoni għandha tinftiehem fid-dawl tal-għan tal-eżenzjoni li hija tistabbilixxi. Fir-rigward ta’ dan l-għan, ma hemm l-ebda ħjiel li dan kien, kif ġie argumentat quddiem il-qorti tar-rinviju, biex l-Istati Membri kontraenti fit-Trattat tal-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana jiġu impediti milli jibbenefikaw minn vantaġġ fiskali li jirriżulta mill-adeżjoni tagħhom fin-NATO. Barra minn hekk, kif osservat il-qorti tar-rinviju stess, tali għan jimplika l-eżistenza ta’ eżenzjoni ġenerali tal-kunsinni tal-merkanzija u tal-provvisti tas-servizzi favur l-impenji meħuda fil-kuntest tan-NATO, inkluż mill-forzi armati tal-Istat Membru li fih dawn il-kunsinni jew dawn il-provvisti jitwettqu. Issa, huwa ċar li l-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT ma jistabbilixxix eżenzjoni ta’ dan id-daqs.
|
|
18. However, it appears that the objective pursued by the Union legislature in adopting that provision must, rather, be understood, as the Commission argued, as being to allow the Member States to honour certain commitments made under the auspices of NATO. Nothing in the documents in the case that have been submitted to the Court indicates that the interpretation of Article 151(1)(c) outlined in paragraph 15 of the present judgment is required so that such commitments can be honoured.
|
18. Min-naħa l-oħra, billi l-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni adotta l-imsemmija dispożizzjoni jidher li l-għan imfittex minnu għandu pjuttost jinftiehem, kif issostni l-Kummissjoni Ewropea, bħala dak li jippermetti lill-Istati Membri biex josservaw ċerti impenji meħuda fil-kuntest tan-NATO. Issa, l-ebda element fil-proċess mibgħut lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja ma jippermetti li jiġi konkluż li l-interpretazzjoni tal-imsemmi Artikolu 151(1)(ċ), imsemmija fil-punt 15 ta’ din is-sentenza, hija meħtieġa sabiex tali impenji jkunu jistgħu jiġu osservati.
|
|
19. On the contrary, Article VIII of the Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters, which, as the Commission points out, the European Union legislature had in mind when it adopted Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive, refers precisely to an exemption from duties and taxes relating to expenditure ‘in the interest of common defence’.
|
19. Għall-kuntarju, l-Artikolu VIII tal-Protokoll dwar il-Kwartieri Ġenerali Militari, li, kif tosserva l-Kummissjoni, serva b’mod partikolari bħala għajn ta’ ispirazzjoni għal-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni meta adotta l-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT, jirreferi speċifikament għal eżenzjoni tad-dazji u tat-taxxi marbuta mal-ispejjeż sostnuti “fl-interess tad-difiża komuni.”
|
|
20. Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive must therefore be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services such as that at issue in the main proceedings, made in a Member State party to the North Atlantic Treaty and consisting in dismantling obsolete ships of the Navy of another State party to that treaty, is exempt from VAT under that provision only where those services are supplied for staff of the armed forces of that other State taking part in the common defence effort or for the civilian staff accompanying them.
|
20. Għalhekk, l-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li provvista ta’ servizzi, bħal dik inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali, magħmula fi Stat Membru kontraenti fit-Trattat tal-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana u li tikkonsisti fiż-żmuntaġġ ta’ bastimenti li ma għadhomx jintużaw mill-flotta ta’ Stat ieħor kontraenti f’dan it-trattat, hija, abbażi ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni, eżenti mill-VAT biss meta din il-provvista hija magħmula għal impjegati tal-forzi armati ta’ dan l-Istat l-ieħor li jipparteċipaw fl-isforz komuni tad-difiża jew għall-impjegati ċivili li jakkumpanjawhom.
|
|
21. As regards the second part of the question asked by the referring court, it must be observed that the wording of Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive does not, in itself, indicate whether a supply of services such as that at issue in the main proceedings, made in a Member State party to the North Atlantic Treaty, must, in order to be exempt from VAT, be made for members of the armed forces of another State party to that treaty who are stationed in or visiting the Member State concerned or for the civilian staff accompanying them.
|
21. Fir-rigward tat-tieni parti tad-domanda magħmula mill-qorti tar-rinviju, għandu jiġi rrilevat li d-diċitura tal-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT ma tindikax, hija stess, jekk provvista ta’ servizzi, bħal dik inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali, magħmula fi Stat Membru kontraenti fit-Trattat tal-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana, għandhiex, biex tkun eżenti mill-VAT, titwettaq għal impjegati tal-forzi armati ta’ Stat kontraenti ieħor f’dan it-trattat li huma stazzjonati jew li jżuru t-territorju tal-Istat Membru kkonċernat jew għall-impjegati ċivili li jakkumpanjawhom.
|
|
22. However, according to the Court’s settled case‑law, in interpreting a provision of European Union law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, inter alia, Feltgen and Bacino Charter Company , paragraph 12 and the case-law cited).
|
22. Madankollu, skont ġurisprudenza stabbilita tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, għall-interpretazzjoni ta’ dispożizzjoni tad-dritt tal-Unjoni, għandhom jittieħdu inkunsiderazzjoni mhux biss il-kliem tagħha, iżda wkoll il-kuntest tagħha u l-għanijiet imfittxija mil-leġiżlazzjoni li minnha hija tagħmel parti (ara, b’mod partikolari, is-sentenza Feltgen u Bacino Charter Company, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, punt 12 u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata).
|
|
23. As regards the context of Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive, account should be taken, as the United Kingdom and Polish Governments rightly observe, of Article 151(1)(d). Whereas the first of those provisions exempts supplies of goods and services in Member States party to the North Atlantic Treaty for the armed forces of other States party to that treaty from VAT under certain conditions, the second provision exempts, under the same conditions, supplies of goods and services to another Member State and intended for the armed forces of any State party to the North Atlantic Treaty other than the Member State of destination itself.
|
23. F’dak li jikkonċerna l-kuntest tal-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT, għandu jittieħed inkunsiderazzjoni, kif ġustament josservaw il-Gvern tar-Renju Unit u l-Gvern Pollakk, il-paragrafu 1(d) ta’ dan l-istess artikolu. Filwaqt li l-ewwel waħda minn dawn iż-żewġ dispożizzjonijiet teżenta mill-VAT, taħt ċerti kundizzjonijiet, il-kunsinni ta’ merkanzija u l-provvista ta’ servizzi magħmula fl-Istati Membri kontraenti fit-Trattat tal-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana u intiżi għall-forzi armati ta’ Stati oħra kontraenti f’dan it-trattat, it-tieni dispożizzjoni teżenta, taħt l-istess kundizzjonijiet, il-kunsinni ta’ merkanzija u l-provvisti ta’ servizzi magħmula għal Stat Membru ieħor u intiżi għall-forzi armati ta’ kull Stat kontraenti fit-Trattat tal-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana li ma huwiex l-Istat Membru ta’ destinazzjoni nnifsu.
|
|
24. It is apparent from those two provisions that, as stated in paragraph 17 of the present judgment, the legislature of the European Union wished to exclude from VAT exemption supplies of goods and services for the armed forces of the Member State in which those goods or services are supplied.
|
24. Minn dawn iż-żewġ dispożizzjonijiet jirriżulta, kif diġà ġie indikat fil-punt 17 ta’ din is-sentenza, li l-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni ried jeskludi mill-eżenzjoni tal-VAT il-kunsinni ta’ merkanzija u l-provvisti ta’ servizzi intiżi għall-forzi armati tal-Istat Membru li jirċievi minn dawn il-kunsinni jew minn dawn il-provvisti.
|
|
25. First, that exclusion, in that it is intended precisely for armed forces which are stationed in or are visiting their own Member State, already suggests, as such, that the place where the armed forces are stationed or which they are visiting is relevant for the application of those provisions.
|
25. Issa, minn naħa, l-imsemmija eżenzjoni, inkwantu tirrigwarda speċifikament il-forzi armati li huma stazzjonati jew li jagħmlu żjara fit-territorju tal-Istat Membru tagħhom stess, diġà tissuġġerixxi, bħala tali, li l-post ta’ stazzjonament jew ta’ żjara tal-forzi armati huwa rilevanti għall-applikazzjoni tal-imsemmija dispożizzjonijiet.
|
|
26. Second, if Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive were interpreted as exempting from VAT supplies of goods and services in a Member State party to the North Atlantic Treaty and intended for the armed forces of another State party to that treaty, even if those forces were not stationed in or visiting that Member State, those supplies of goods or services could, ultimately, be for the benefit, without having been subject to VAT, of the armed forces of another Member State which are stationed in or visiting that State. Such an interpretation of that provision would be contrary to the intention of the Union legislature outlined in paragraph 24 of the present judgment.
|
26. Min-naħa l-oħra, jekk l-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT jiġi interpretat bħala li jeżenta mill-VAT il-kunsinni ta’ merkanzija u l-provvisti ta’ servizzi magħmula fi Stat Membru kontraenti fit-Trattat tal-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana u intiżi għall-forzi armati ta’ Stat ieħor kontraenti f’dan it-trattat, minkejja li l-imsemmija forzi ma humiex stazzjonati jew ma humiex fuq żjara fit-territorju tal-imsemmi Stat Membru, dawn il-kunsinni jew provvisti jistgħu finalment ikunu ta’ benefiċċju, mingħajr ma jkunu ġew suġġetti għall-VAT, għall-forzi armati ta’ Stat Membru ieħor li huma stazzjonati jew li huma fuq żjara fit-territorju ta’ dan tal-aħħar. Issa, tali interpretazzjoni tal-imsemmija dispożizzjoni tista’ tippreġudika r-rieda tal-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni msemmija fil-punt 24 ta’ din is-sentenza.
|
|
27. Accordingly, taking account of the foregoing observations and, moreover, of the need to interpret VAT exemptions strictly, noted in paragraph 14 of the present judgment, Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as exempting, under the conditions it lays down, supplies of goods and services in a Member State party to the North Atlantic Treaty for the armed forces of another State party to that treaty, provided that those forces are stationed in or visiting the Member State concerned.
|
27. Għalhekk, fid-dawl ta’ dak li ntqal iktar ’il fuq kif ukoll, barra minn hekk, tal-ħtieġa li l-eżenzjonijiet tal-VAT jiġu interpretati restrittivament, kif tfakkar fil-punt 14 ta’ din is-sentenza, l-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT għandu jiġi interpretat bħala li jeżenta, taħt il-kundizzjonijiet li jipprovdi, il-kunsinni ta’ merkanzija u l-provvisti ta’ servizzi magħmula fi Stat Membru kontraenti fit-Trattat tal-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana u intiżi għall-forzi armati ta’ Stat ieħor kontraenti f’dan it-trattat, sa fejn dawn huma stazzjonati jew fuq żjara fit-territorju tal-Istat Membru kkonċernat.
|
|
28. It does not appear from the documents submitted to the Court that an interpretation of that provision other than that upheld in the previous paragraph might be called for in order to allow the Member States to honour the commitments made under the auspices of NATO.
|
28. Mill-proċess mibgħut lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja ma jirriżultax li interpretazzjoni oħra tal-imsemmija dispożizzjoni differenti minn dik adottata fil-punt preċedenti hija meħtieġa sabiex tippermetti li l-Istati Membri josservaw l-impenji meħuda minnhom fil-kuntest tan-NATO.
|
|
29. On the contrary, it is apparent fr om Article VIII of the Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters that, by providing for an exemption from duties and taxes in order to facilitate the establishment, construction, maintenance and operation of Allied Headquarters on the territory of a State party to the North Atlantic Treaty, that article implies that, by definition, it concerns armed forces stationed in or visiting that State.
|
29. Għall-kuntrarju, mill-Artikolu VIII tal-Protokoll dwar il-Kwartieri Ġenerali Militari jirriżulta li, billi jistabbilixxi eżenzjoni mid-dazji u mit-taxxi sabiex jiffaċilita l-ħolqien, il-kostruzzjoni, il-manutenzjoni u l-funzjonament tal-kwartieri ġenerali interalleati li jinsabu fit-territorju ta’ Stat kontraenti fit-Trattat tal-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana, dan l-artikolu jimplika, bħala tali, li jirrigwarda l-forzi armati stazzjonati jew fuq żjara fit-territorju ta’ dan l-Istat.
|
|
30. Accordingly, the answer to the question referred is that Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services such as that at issue in the main proceedings, made in a Member State party to the North Atlantic Treaty and consisting in dismantling obsolete ships of the Navy of another State party to that treaty, is exempt from VAT under that provision only where
|
30. Għaldaqstant, ir-risposta għad-domanda magħmula għandha tkun li l-Artikolu 151(1)(ċ) tad-Direttiva VAT għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li provvista ta’ servizzi, bħal dik inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali, magħmula fi Stat Membru kontraenti fit-Trattat tal-Atlantiku tat-Tramuntana u li tikkonsisti fiż-żmuntaġġ ta’ bastimenti li ma għadhomx jintużaw mill-flotta ta’ Stat ieħor kontraenti f’dan it-trattat, hija, abbażi ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni, eżenti mill-VAT biss meta:
|
|
– those services are supplied for staff of the armed forces of that other State taking part in the common defence effort or for the civilian staff accompanying them, and
|
– din il-provvista hija magħmula għal impjegati tal-forzi armati ta’ dan l-Istat ieħor li jipparteċipaw fl-isforz komuni tad-difiża jew għall-impjegati ċivili li jakkumpanjawhom, u li
|
|
– those services are supplied for members of the armed forces who are stationed in or visiting the Member State concerned or for the civilian staff accompanying them.
|
– din l-istess provvista hija magħmula għal impjegati tal-imsemmija forzi armati stazzjonati jew fuq żjara fit-territorju tal-Istat Membru kkonċernat jew għall-impjegati ċivili li jakkumpanjawhom.
|
|
Costs
|
Fuq l-ispejjeż
|
|
31. Since 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.
|
31. Peress li l-proċedura għandha, fir-rigward tal-partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali, in-natura ta’ kwistjoni mqajma quddiem il-qorti tar-rinviju, hija din il-qorti li tiddeċiedi fuq l-ispejjeż. L-ispejjeż sostnuti għas-sottomissjoni tal-osservazzjonijiet lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, barra dawk tal-imsemmija partijiet, ma jistgħux jitħallsu lura.
|