Language of document :

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias - Greece) - Elmeka NE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon

(Joined Cases C-181/04 to C-183/04) 1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 15(4)(a), (5) and (8) - Exemption for the chartering of sea-going vessels - Scope)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elmeka NE

Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling - Simvoulio tis Epikratias - Interpretation of Article 15(4), (5) and (8) 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) - Exemptions - Exemption for the chartering of sea-going vessels - Scope

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby rules:

Article 15(4)(a) 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, to which Article 15(5) of that directive refers, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992, applies not only to vessels used on the high seas for the carriage of passengers for reward, but also to vessels used on the high seas for the purpose of commercial, industrial or fishing activity.

Article 15(8) of the Sixth Directive (77/388) is to be interpreted as meaning that the exemption provided for therein applies to the supply of services directly to the shipowner for the direct needs of sea-going vessels.

In the framework of the common system of value added tax, national tax authorities are obliged to respect the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. It falls to the referring court to decide whether, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, the taxable person could reasonably have believed that the decision in question had been taken by a competent authority.

____________

1 - OJ C 168, 26. 6. 2004. OJ C 201, 07. 8. 2004.