Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document C2004/094/38

Case C-41/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that Court of 30 January 2004 in the case of Levob Verzekeringen B.V., OB Bank N.V., c.s, against Staatssecretaris van Fiananciën

HL C 94., 2004.4.17, p. 19–19 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)

17.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that Court of 30 January 2004 in the case of Levob Verzekeringen B.V., OB Bank N.V., c.s, against Staatssecretaris van Fiananciën

(Case C-41/04)

(2004/C 94/38)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden of 30 January 2004, received at the Court Registry on 2 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Levob Verzekeringen B.V., OB Bank N.V., c.s, against Staatssecretaris van Fiananciën on the following questions:

1

(a)

Are Article 2(1) and Article 5(1) of the Sixth Directive, in conjunction with Article 6(1) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the acquisition of software, such as that in the present case and on terms such as those at issue in this dispute – whereby separate payment is stipulated in respect of the standard software, recorded on a carrier, developed and put on the market by the supplier, on the one hand, and the subsequent customisation thereof to the meet the purchaser's requirements, on the other – must be regarded as a single supply?

(b)

If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, are these provisions to be interpreted as meaning that this supply must be regarded as a service (of which the supply of the goods, namely the carriers, forms part)?

(c)

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is Article 9 of the Sixth Directive (in the version in force until 6 May 2002) to be interpreted as meaning that this service is supplied at the place referred to in Article 9(1)?

(d)

If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, which part of Article 9(2) of the Sixth Directive is applicable?

2

(a)

If the answer to Question 1a is in the negative, are the provisions referred to therein to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of non-customised software on the carriers must be regarded as a supply of tangible property for which the agreed separate price constitutes the consideration for the purposes of Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive?

(b)

If the answer to this question is in the negative, is Article 9 of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the service is supplied at the place referred to in Article 9(1) or at one of the places referred to in Article 9(2)?

(c)

Does the same apply to the service consisting of the customisation of software as applies to the provision of the standard software?
Top