This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CA0440
Case C-440/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Metropol Spielstätten Unternehmergesellschaft (haftungsbeschränkt) v Finanzamt Hamburg-Bergedorf (Taxation — VAT — Betting and gaming — Legislation of a Member State under which VAT and a special tax are to be levied cumulatively on the operation of low-prize slot machines — Whether permissible — Basis of assessment — Whether the taxable person can pass on the VAT)
Case C-440/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Metropol Spielstätten Unternehmergesellschaft (haftungsbeschränkt) v Finanzamt Hamburg-Bergedorf (Taxation — VAT — Betting and gaming — Legislation of a Member State under which VAT and a special tax are to be levied cumulatively on the operation of low-prize slot machines — Whether permissible — Basis of assessment — Whether the taxable person can pass on the VAT)
Case C-440/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Metropol Spielstätten Unternehmergesellschaft (haftungsbeschränkt) v Finanzamt Hamburg-Bergedorf (Taxation — VAT — Betting and gaming — Legislation of a Member State under which VAT and a special tax are to be levied cumulatively on the operation of low-prize slot machines — Whether permissible — Basis of assessment — Whether the taxable person can pass on the VAT)
OJ C 367, 14.12.2013, p. 19–20
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 24/10/2013
- Date lodged:
- 03/10/2012
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- German
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
14.12.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 367/19 |
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Metropol Spielstätten Unternehmergesellschaft (haftungsbeschränkt) v Finanzamt Hamburg-Bergedorf
(Case C-440/12) (1)
(Taxation - VAT - Betting and gaming - Legislation of a Member State under which VAT and a special tax are to be levied cumulatively on the operation of low-prize slot machines - Whether permissible - Basis of assessment - Whether the taxable person can pass on the VAT)
2013/C 367/33
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Finanzgericht Hamburg
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Metropol Spielstätten Unternehmergesellschaft (haftungsbeschränkt)
Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Bergedorf
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of the first sentence of Article 1(2), Article 73, Article 135(1)(i) and Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Taxation of betting and gaming — Legislation of a Member State under which VAT and a special tax are to be levied cumulatively on the operation of low-prize slot machines
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 135(1)(i) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that value added tax and a special national tax on games of chance may be levied cumulatively, provided that the special national tax cannot be characterised as a tax on turnover; |
|
2. |
The first sentence of Article 1(2) and Article 73 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision or practice whereby, in the operation of gaming machines offering the possibility of winnings, the amount of the cash receipts from those machines is used after a set interval as the basis of assessment; |
|
3. |
Article 1(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not precluding a national system regulating an unharmonised tax, under which the value added tax owed is to be set in full against that tax. |
