Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in the case Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla.
Kokott proposes that the questions referred by the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas be answered as follows:
1. Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2003/96 requires, for an indirect exemption, the beneficiary of the refund to have used the fuel for the purposes of navigation. That is not the case if it has merely supplied a ship together with fuel to a shipping company. A ship builder does not, by the sale of a ship together with fuel contained in it, provide any services for consideration for the purposes of (commercial) navigation.
2. The Member States may lay down the conditions for an exemption under Article 14(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 6(c) of Directive 2003/96. It is not contrary to the principle of proportionality to make the claim by a third party for a refund or reimbursement of the excise duty in question subject to the submission of certain evidence in order to permit effective verification and to prevent double relief or undue non-taxation.
Informatiesoort: Nieuws
Rubriek: Europees belastingrecht, Accijns en verbruiksbelastingen
H&I: Previews
0