Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 11 November 2005 in VDP Dental Laboratory N.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-401/05)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 11 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 16 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between VDP Dental Laboratory N.V. and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following questions:

Is Article 13.A[(1)](e) of the Sixth Directive ¹ to be interpreted as meaning that dental prostheses supplied by a taxable person who contracts out the manufacture thereof to a dental technician are covered by the notion of dental prostheses supplied by dental technicians?

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative:

Is Article 17(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which has exempted the abovementioned supplies from VAT must attach the right to deduct to those supplies in so far as (in particular under the first indent of Article 28b.B(1) of the Sixth Directive) they take place in another Member State which has excluded them from exemption pursuant to Article 28(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive, in conjunction with Item 2 of Annex E thereto?

____________

¹ - 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).