The impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on VAT law

ABSTRACT

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union became legally binding following its entry into force with the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, and it has the same legal value as the EU Treaties. Since then, the EU fundamental rights aspect of VAT law has not been subject to much academic discussion or particular attention from VAT practitioners. This article contributes to further development of research in the area of EU fundamental rights and VAT law by examining; when the Charter is relevant in VAT law and if so how the Charter manifests itself in EU VAT case law, and what special interpretative principles the Charter triggers itself in connection with interpretation of fundamental rights comprised by the Charter. The Charter has proved to play an important—but also diversified—role in both formal and substantive aspects of VAT law, such as national rules on administrative sanctions and penalties, criminal proceedings, procurement of evidence, procedural guarantees, VAT fraud and abuse, VAT exemptions, VAT deductions, VAT impositions, VAT increases and so on. Any current or potential impact of the Charter on VAT-related matters must be considered in connection with legislation, case law, administrative practice etc, which must comply with the Charter given its status as EU primary law. If citizens, companies or their advisers etc are not aware of their EU fundamental rights under the Charter, this could lead to the loss of those rights and the loss of the formal or substantive case, with potential professional liability for advisers.

KEYWORDS:

• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
• VAT law
• law

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 The author has previously done research in cross-disciplinary fields of law and continues to do so in the fields of VAT law and tax law; her PhD project was on the interaction between VAT law and income tax law: Interaktionen mellem momsretten og indkomstskatteretten. The author is carrying out a 3-year postdoctoral project on ‘Combating Tax Avoidance and Protecting the Internal Market—EU VAT Grouping’: http://jura.ku.dk/fire/english/research/combat/, which is financed by the Danish Council for Independent Research and has been awarded the Sapere Aude-Research Talent Prize with reference ID: DFF—6109-00146.

2 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2010/C 83/02) of 30 March 2010.

3 The author has previously contributed to this area from a Danish perspective in Momspanelet, June 2016.

4 See part 6.1.

5 See part 6.3.

6 Organised by the Institute for Austrian and International Tax Law, WU (Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien).

7 Organised by School of Economics and Management, Department of Business Law, Lund University.

8 See Article 51(1), first sentence, of the Charter which states that the Charter is addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the EU and the EU Member States.

9 Organised by FIRE—Research Group for Fiscal Relations, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen.

10 Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 (77/388/EEC).

11 Eg Filippo Fontanelli, ‘Hic Sunt Nationes: The Elusive Limits of the EU Charter and the German Constitutional Watchdog’ (2013) 9 European Constitutional Law Review 315; Monika Szwarc ‘Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Context of Sanctions Imposed by Member States for Infringements of EU Law: Comment on Fransson Case’ (2014) 20 European Public Law 229; and Emily Hancox, ‘The Meaning of “Implementing” EU Law under Article 51(1) of the Charter: Åkerberg Fransson’ (2013) 50 Common Market Law Review 1411.

12 Eg Eric Poelmann, ‘Some Fiscal Issues of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’ (2015) 43 Intertax 173.

13 Reference is made to other literature: Roberto Baratta, ‘Accession of the EU to the ECHR: The Rationale for the ECJ’s Prior Involvement Mechanism’ (2013) 50 Common Market Law Review 1305; William BT Mock et al, Human Rights in Europe, Commentary on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Carolina Academic Pr, 2009) pp 329–335; Julianne Kokott and Christoph Sobotta, ‘The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union after Lisbon’, EUI Working Papers, AEL 2010/6, Academy of European Law, part 2, pp 4–5; Hanneke Senden, Interpretation of Fundamental Rights in a Multilevel Legal System, An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union (1st ed., 2011) pp 33–35; Joakim Nergelius & Eleonor Kristoffersson, Human Rights in Contemporary European Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2015); and Giacomo di Federico, ‘Fundamental Rights in the EU: Legal Pluralism and Multi-Level Protection After the Lisbon Treaty’ in Giacomo di Federico (ed), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, From Declaration to Binding Instrument (Springer, 2011) pp 15–54; and Robin CA White, ‘The Strasbourg Perspective and its Effect on the Court of Justice: Is Mutual Respect Enough?’ in Anthony Arnull et al (eds), Continuity and Change in EU Law, Essays in Honour of Sir Francis Jacobs, pp 139–156.

14 Mats Lindfelt, Fundamental Rights in the European Union—Towards Higher Law of the Land? (Abo Akademi University Press, 2007) p 34.

15 Koen Lenaerts, Piet van Nuffel et al, European Union Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 2011) pp 830–833; Mock (n 13) pp ix–xv; Zarys Prawa et al, Fundamental Rights Protection in the European Union, pp 40–45; Lindfelt (n 14) pp 4–12; and Jacqueline Dutheil de la Rochère, ‘The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Not Binding but Influential: the Example of Good Administration’ in Anthony Arnull et al (eds), Continuity and Change in EU Law, Essays in Honour of Sir Francis Jacobs, pp 157–158.

16 Cologne European Council, 3–4 June 1999, Conclusions of the Presidency, IV. Further Development of the European Union, para 44, and Annex IV—European Council Decision on the drawing up of a Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

17 Cologne European Council, 3–4 June 1999, Conclusions of the Presidency, Annex IV—European Council Decision on the drawing up of a Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, para 1.

18 Ibid, para 2.

19 Cologne European Council, 3–4 June 1999, Conclusions of the Presidency, Annex IV. Further Development of the European Union, para 45.

20 Tampere European Council, 15 and 16 October 1999, Presidency Conclusions, Introduction, para. 4, and the Annex: Arrangements for the Body to Elaborate a Draft EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

21 European Council—Nice, 7–10 December 2000, Conclusions of the Presidency, I. Charter of Fundamental Rights, para 2.

22 The Charter was included as Part II in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, to be made legally binding by Article I-9 (1): ‘The Union shall recognise the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which constitutes Part II.’

23 The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was signed in Rome on 29 October 2004 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 December 2004 (C series, No 310).

24 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights—proclamation at Parliament in Strasbourg 12 December 2007 of 29 November 2007, Historical background and links, bullet point 7.

25 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights—proclamation at Parliament in Strasbourg 12 December 2007 of 29 November 2007, Legal status of the Charter, para 5.

26 Lindfelt (n 14) p 128.

27 TEU Article 6(1), first paragraph.

28 Brussels European Council, 21–22 June 2007, Presidency Conclusions, (11177/1/07 REV 1 CONCL 2 of 20 July 2007), Annex I, II. Amendments to the EU Treaty, para 9, and Annex 1, Amendments to the EU Treaty, Title I—Common provisions, litra 5) and its accompanying note 17. The final Charter of 7 December 2000 was adapted at Strasbourg on 12 December 2007; see TEU Article 6(1), first paragraph.

29 Eg Case C-216/11 Commission v France [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:819, Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón, point 41. See Poelmann (n 12) p 173, para 2; Xavier Groussot and Laurent Pech, ‘Fundamental Rights Protection in the European Union post Lisbon Treaty’ (2010) Fondation Robert Schuman, European Issue No 173, part 1.1, p 2; George Nicolaou, ‘The Strasbourg View on the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (2013) European Legal Studies, Research Papers in Law, 3/2013, p 2; Prawa (n 15) p 147; Ola Zetterquist, ‘The Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European’ in di Federico (ed), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, From Declaration to Binding Instrument (Springer, 2011) p 3; and Koen Lenaerts, Piet van Nuffel et al, European Union Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 2011) p 825.

30 Case C-555/07 Kücükdeveci [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:21, para 22; Case C-271/08 Commission v Germany [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:426, para 37; Case C-578/08 Chakroun [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:117, para 44; Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke and Hartmut Eifert [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:662, para 45; Case C-236/09 Test-Achats [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:100 para 16; Case C-243/09 Günter Fuss [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:609, para 66; Case C-447/09 Reinhard Prigge, Michael Fromm, Volker Lambach [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:573, para 38; Case C-155/10 Williams [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:588, para 18; Joined Cases C-188/10 and C-189/10 Melki and Abdeli [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:363, para 55; Case C-214/10 KHS [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:761, para 37; Case C-337/10 Georg Neidel [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:263, para 40; Case C-544/10 Deutsches Weintor [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:526, para 43; Case C-78/11 ANGED [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:372, para 17; Joined Cases C-229/11 and C-230/11, Alexander Heimann and Konstantin Toltschin [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:693, para 22; Case C-399/11 Stefano Melloni [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:107, para 48; Case C-451/11 Natthaya Dülger [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:504, para 53; Case C-476/11 HK Danmark [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:590, para 19; Case C-546/11 Dansk Jurist- og Økonomforbund [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:603, para 40; Case C-539/12 ZJR Lock [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:351, para 14; Case C-219/14 Kathleen Greenfield [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:745, para 27; and Aidan O’Neill QC, ‘How the CJEU Uses the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (2010) 17 Judicial Review 203, para 1; and Federico Fabbrini, Fundamental Rights in Europe, Challenges and Transformations in Comparative Perspective, p 10.

31 Thus the CJEU cannot decide on the HR Convention, but solely on the Charter, see Case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:105, para 44; Case C-199/11 Otis [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:684, para 47; Case C-398/13 P—Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:535, para 46; Case C-601/15 PPU [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:84, para 46; and Case C-543/14 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:605, para 23.

32 Kokott & Sobotta (n 13) part 4, p 6.

33 Ibid, p 7; and O’Neill QC (n 30) p 203, para 5.

34 Borbála Kolozs, ‘Neutrality in VAT’ in Michael Lang et al (eds) Value Added Tax and Direct Taxation, Similarities and Differences, p 203; and Dutheil de la Rochère (n 15) p 163.

35 Dutheil de la Rochère (n 15) p 158.

36 Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2007/C 303/02) of 14 December 2007, 10th paragraph of the Explanation on Article 52.

37 Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2007/C 303/02) of 14 December 2007.

38 Explanations, second paragraph of the Explanation on Article 51, where reference is made Case 5/88 Wachauf [1989] ECLI:EU:C:1989:321; Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECLI:EU:C:1991:254; Case C-309/96 Annibaldi [1997] ECLI:EU:C:1997:631; and Case C-292/97 Karlsson [2000] ECLI:EU:C:2000:202, para 37. See also Case C-159/90 Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland [1991] ECLI:EU:C:1991:378, para 31; and Case C-81/05 Anacleto Cordero Alonso [2006] ECLI:EU:C:2006:529, para 37; and Åkerberg Fransson (n 31) para 19. See also Thomas von Danwitz & Katherina Paraschas, ‘A Fresh Start for the Charter: Fundamental Questions on the Application of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (2012) 35 Fordham International Law Journal 1396, pp 1399–1409; Filippo Fontanelli, ‘The Implementation of European Union Law by Member States under Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (2014) 20 Columbia Journal of European Law 194, part II C; and Hancox (n 11) p 1412.

39 Steve Peers et al, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary (Hart Publishing, 2014) pp 1434–1435.

40 Filippo Fontanelli, ‘The European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Right Two Years Later’ (2011) 3 Perspectives on Federalism, part 2, pp 26–27; Peers (n 39) p 1425, para 51.30; Mock (n 13) p 320; Fontanelli, ‘Hic Sunt Nationes: The Elusive Limits of the EU Charter and the German Constitutional Watchdog’ (n 11) p 319; Daniel Denman, ‘The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: How Sharp are its Teeth?’ (2014) 19 Judicial Review 160, p 160, para 1; and Daniel Sarmiento, ‘Who’s Afraid of the Charter? The Court of Justice, National Courts and the New Framework of Fundamental Rights Protection in Europe’ (2013) 50 Common Market Law Review 1267, pp 1274–1275.

41 Case C-419/14 WebMindLicenses [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:832, para 66, where reference is made to Åkerberg Fransson (n 31) para 19 and the case law cited there.

42 Case C-650/13 Thierry Delvigne [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:648, para 26, where reference is made to case Åkerberg Fransson (n 38) para 19, and Case C-265/13 Torralbo Marcos [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:187, para 29. See also Case C-390/12 Pfleger [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:281, para 33.

43 ERT (n 38) para 43; Case C-145/09 Tsakouridis [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:708, para 52; and Pfleger (n 42) para 36. See also Peers (n 39) pp 1428–1429; Fontanelli, ‘Hic Sunt Nationes: The Elusive Limits of the EU Charter and the German Constitutional Watchdog’ (n 11) pp 317–318; Fontanelli, ‘The Implementation of European Union Law by Member States under Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (n 38) part II A; and Hancox (n 11) pp 1419–1420.

44 See Case C-299/95 Kremzow [1997] ECLI:EU:C:1997:254, para 16.

45 Peers (n 39) p 1432, para 51.50; and Denman (n 40) pp 164–166.

46 Case C-206/13 Cruciano Siragusa [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:126, para 25, where reference is made to Annibaldi (n 38) paras 21–23; Case C-40/11 Iida [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:691, para 79; and Case C-87/12 Ymeraga [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:291, para 41.

47 CJEU is the highest authoritative interpreter of EU law according to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). See also Ulla Neergaard & Ruth Nielsen, European Legal Method—Towards a New European Legal Realism? (DJ0F Publishing, 2013) p 121.

48 The methods of interpretation formulated in the Cilfit case have been followed since: eg Case 292/82 Merck [1983] ECLI:EU:C:1983:335; Case 337/82, St Nikolaus Brennerei [1984] ECLI:EU:C:1984:69; Case C-223/98 Adidas [1999] ECLI:EU:C:1999:500; Case C-301/98 KVS [2000] ECLI:EU:C:2000:269; Case C-191/99 Kvaerner [2001] ECLI:EU:C:2001:332; Case C-17/03, Vereniging voor Energie [2005] ECLI:EU:C:2005:362; Joined Cases C-544/03 and C-545/03 Mobistar and Belgacom Mobile [2005] ECLI:EU:C:2005:518; Case C-53/05 Commission v Portuguese Republic [2006] ECLI:EU:C:2006:448; Case C-173/06 Agrover [2007] ECLI:EU:C:2007:612; Case C-298/07 deutsche internet versicherung [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:572; and Case C-583/11 P—Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:625.

49 Miguel Poiares Maduro, ‘Interpreting European Law: Judicial Adjudication in a Context of Constitutional Pluralism’ (2007) 2 European Journal Legal Studies 1.

50 Koen Lenaerts and José A Gutiérrez-Fons, ‘To Say What the Law of the EU Is: Methods of Interpretation and the European Court of Justice’ (2014) 20 Colombia Journal of European Law 3; Anthony Arnull, The European Court and its Court of Justice, pp 607–621; and Lionel Neville Brown and Francis G Jacobs, The Court of Justice of the European Communities, pp 268–292.

51 In the same direction: Sarmiento (n 40) p 1303.

52 Kokott & Sobotta (n 13) part 2, pp 2 and 4.

53 Ibid, part A, pp 8–9; and Nicolaou (n 29) p 2.

54 Danwitz & Paraschas (n 38) p 1423.

55 Åkerberg Fransson (n 31) para 20; Case C-418/11 Texdata Software [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:588, para 73; Cruciano Siragusa (n 46) para 22; and Case C-69/14 Dragoș Constantin Târșia [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:662, Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen, point 40.

56 Lenaerts and Gutiérrez-Fons (n 50), part IV; Peers (n 39) p 1724, para 62.29; Ingolf Pernice, The Treaty of Lisbon and Fundamental Rights (WHI—Paper 7/08) p 242; and Kokott & Sobotta (n 13) part 2, p 4.

57 Case C-27/11 Anton Vinkov [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:326, para 57. Peers (n 39) p 1721, para 62.21.

58 Explanations, third and fourth paragraphs of the Explanation on Article 51, where reference is made to Case C-249/96 Frant [1998] ECLI:EU:C:1998:63, para 45; and Fontanelli, ‘Hic Sunt Nationes: The Elusive Limits of the EU Charter and the German Constitutional Watchdog’ (n 11) p 317.

59 Groussot & Pech (n 29) p 5.

60 Pernice (n 56) pp 243–244.

61 Explanations, third paragraph of the Explanation on Article 51.

62 Ibid, second paragraph of the Explanation on Article 52.

63 Ibid, second paragraph of the Explanation on Article 52; Fontanelli (n 40) pp 24–25; and Groussot & Pech (n 29) p 6.

64 Also referred to as the ‘general limitations clause’, see Mock (n 13) p 323 ff; and Lindfelt (n 14) p 137.

65 Explanations, first paragraph of the Explanation on Article 52, where reference is made to Karlsson (n 38) para 45. See WebMindLicenses (n 41) para 69; Texdata Software (n 55) para 84; Case C-418/11 Texdata Software [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:50, Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, point 92; Case C-201/14 Smaranda Bara [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:461, Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón, point 81; and Case C-543/14 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:157, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, point 80.

66 Explanations, second paragraph of the Explanation on Article 52.

67 Also referred to as the ‘homogeneity principle’ by Advocate General Kokott in her Opinion in Case C-105/14 Taricco [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:293, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, point 113.

68 Explanations, fourth paragraph of the Explanation on Article 52; and Peers (n 39) p 1490, para 52.100.

69 Explanations, third paragraph of the Explanation on Article 52.

70 Ibid.

71 Åkerberg Fransson (n 31) para 44; Otis (n 31) para 47; P—Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (n 31) para 46; PPU (n 31) para 46; and Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 31) para 23.

72 Kirsten Shoraka, Human Rights and Minority Rights in the European Union (Routledge Chapman Hall, 2010) p 49; and Lindfelt (n 14) pp 147 and 154. On pp 148–149 Mats Lindfelt questions the coherent interpretation of the rights embodied in both the Charter and the HR Convention.

73 In the same direction: Peers (n 39) p 1498, para 52.128; O’Neill QC (n 30) p 203, para 4; Fontanelli (n 40) p 28; and Groussot & Pech (n 29) p 3.

74 Eg Case C-105/14 Taricco [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:555, para 57; WebMindLicenses (n 41) paras 70, 77, 78 and 81; and Stefano Melloni (n 30) para 50. See also Explanations, second paragraph of the Explanation on Article 19; and ibid fifth paragraph of the Explanation on Article 47.

75 Poelmann (n 12) p 174, para 2.1; and in the same direction: Hancox (n 11) p 1430.

76 See more about the style of interpretation of the ECHR: Jean-Paul Costa, ‘On the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments’ (2011) 7 European Constitutional Law Review 173; Shai Dothan, ‘In defence of Expansive Interpretation in the European Court of Human Rights. (Interpretation in International Law)’ (2014) 3 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 508; Bernadette Rainey, Elizabeth Wicks and Clare Ovey, Jacobs, White & Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights (OUP, 6th ed, 2014) pp 64–81; and Senden (n 13).

77 Explanations, fourth paragraph of the Explanation on Article 52.

78 For more on the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, see: Peers (n 39) pp 1503–1505; and Kokott & Sobotta (n 13) part 2, pp 2–3.

79 Explanations, ninth paragraph of the Explanation on Article 52, where reference is made to Case 44/79 Hauer [1979] ECLI:EU:C:1979:290 and Case 155/79 AM&S [1981] ECLI:EU:C:1982:157.

80 In the same direction: Fabbrini (n 30) p 256–257, where he warns against overestimating the concept of ‘common constitutional traditions’ due to the existence of significant variations in the human rights standards of the EU Member States.

81 Explanations, tenth paragraph of the Explanation on Article 52.

82 Peers (n 39) pp 1505–1511; Prawa (n 15) pp 64–79; Denman (n 40) pp 166–170; and Danwitz & Paraschas (n 38) pp 1410–1414.

83 Explanations, 10th paragraph of the Explanation on Article 52, which further explains that such implemented principles do not give rise to direct claims for positive action by the EU institutions or Member States’ authorities. See also Dutheil de la Rochère (n 15) p 158.

84 Ibid, para. 11.

85 Fabbrini (n 30) p 39.

86 Stefano Melloni (n 30) paras 55–64.

87 Explanations, Explanation on Article 53; and Mock (n 13) p 336.

88 Article 54 of the Charter corresponds to Article 17 of the HR Convention; see Explanations, Explanation on Article 54.

89 Mock (n 13) p 345.

90 Kokott & Sobotta (n 13) part 4, p 7.

91 TFEU Article 252, second paragraph.

92 Maduro (n 49) p 13, where it is noted that the argumentative mode of the Advocates General is a more personal and teleological one.

93 Peers (n 39) p 1433; and Hancox (n 11) p 1411.

94 Åkerberg Fransson (n 31) para 12.

95 Ibid, para 32.

96 Ibid, para 24.

97 Ibid, para 25, where reference is made to Case C-132/06 Commission v Italy [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:412, paras 37 and 46.

98 However, the obligation to ensure effective collection of the EU’s own resources cannot be stretched too far. See Case C-500/10 Belvedere [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:186, para 23; and Case C-500/10 Belvedere [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:754, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, point 48.

99 Council Decision (EC) 2007/436, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources [2007] OJ L 163, p 17.

100 Åkerberg Fransson (n 31) para 26, where among others reference is made to Case C-539/09 Commission v Germany [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:733, para 72.

101 The arguments of the CJEU were the same in Taricco (n 74), paras 36–39. The inclusion of Article 2 and Article 250(1) as part of the argumentation is criticised by Fontanelli, ‘Hic Sunt Nationes: The Elusive Limits of the EU Charter and the German Constitutional Watchdog’ (n 11) p 325; and Fontanelli, ‘The Implementation of European Union Law by Member States under Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (n 38) 20 Columbia Journal of European Law 193, part III B 3.

102 Åkerberg Fransson (n 31) para 27; Texdata Software (n 55) para 72; and the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-105/14 Taricco (n 67) point 36.

103 Åkerberg Fransson (n 31) para 28.

104 Szwarc (n 11) 238; Fabbrini (n 30) p 40; and Poelmann (n 12) p 174, para 2, where reference is made to Åkerberg Fransson (n 31); and Case C-457/09 Claude Chartry, para 25.

105 Szwarc (n 11) p 245.

106 It has been suggested that it is the function of the national rules that matters and not the intention of the national rules: Sarmiento (n 40) p 1279.

107 Fontanelli, ‘Hic Sunt Nationes: The Elusive Limits of the EU Charter and the German Constitutional Watchdog’ (n 11) p 315.

108 In the same direction: Fontanelli, ‘Hic Sunt Nationes: The Elusive Limits of the EU Charter and the German Constitutional Watchdog’ (n 11) p 327; and Hancox (n 11) pp 1419 and 1421.

109 Case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:340, Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón, point 5, and his discussion of this in points 25–65. See Peers (n 39) p 1436, para 51.63; Fontanelli, ‘Hic Sunt Nationes: The Elusive Limits of the EU Charter and the German Constitutional Watchdog’ (n 11) p 315; Szwarc (n 11) p 233; and Hancox (n 11) p 1414.

110 Åkerberg Fransson (n 31) paras 33 and 34.

111 Ibid, para 34.

112 Ibid, para 35, where reference is made to Case C-489/10 Bonda [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:319, para 37. See the Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in Case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson (n 109) point 76.

113 Åkerberg Fransson (n 31) paras 35–37.

114 WebMindLicenses (n 41) para 66; and in the same direction: Poelmann (n 12) p 178, para 3.5.3.

115 Åkerberg Fransson (n 31) para 48.

116 Ibid, para 45; and the Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in Case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson (n 109) point 112.

117 Fontanelli (n 38), part III B 1, fourth paragraph.

118 Joined Cases C-131/13, C-163/13 and C-164/13 Italmoda [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:2455, para 41.

119 Ibid, para 62.

120 Ibid, para 61; and Joined Cases C-131/13, C-163/13 and C-164/13, Italmoda [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:2217, Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, point 60. The CJEU referred to Case C-110/99 Emsland-Stärke [2000] ECLI:EU:C:2000:695, para 56; Case C-255/02 Halifax [2006] ECLI:EU:C:2006:121, para 93; and Case C-262/10 Döhler Neuenkirchen [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:559, para 43.

121 Italmoda (n 118) para 62.

122 Taricco (n 74) para 18.

123 Ibid, para 34.

124 Ibid, para 35.

125 Ibid, para 58.

126 Ibid, para 53; and the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-105/14 Taricco (n 67) point 113.

127 Taricco (n 74) para 54.

128 Ibid, para 57.

129 Ibid, para 55. See the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-105/14 Taricco (n 67) point 127, where she emphasises that the only requirement is that the solution adopted should be applied in a fair trial (see Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6(1) of the HR Convention) in a non-discriminatory manner and on the basis of clear, comprehensible and generally applicable criteria.

130 Case C-662/13 Surgicare [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:89, para 24.

131 Ibid, para 29.

132 Ibid, para 33, where reference is made to Case C-472/11 Banif Plus Bank [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:88, para 29, and the cases cited there. See Belvedere (n 98) para 23.

133 WebMindLicenses (n 41) paras 23 and 61.

134 Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter are closely related. See in Case C-419/14 WebMindLicenses [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:606, Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet, points 108–109; and in the same direction Case C-73/07 Satakunnan [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:266, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, point 40.

135 WebMindLicenses (n 41) para 28, Nos 13–15.

136 Ibid, para 83.

137 Ibid, para 66, where reference is made to Åkerberg Fransson (n 31) para. 19 and the cases cited there; and the Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in Case C-419/14 WebMindLicenses (n 134) point 104. See also Texdata Software (n 55) para 72.

138 WebMindLicenses (n 41) para 67.

139 Ibid, paras 68 and 90.

140 Ibid, para 69. See Texdata Software (n 55) para 84; the Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in Case C-418/11 Texdata Software (n 65) point 92; and the Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in Case C-201/14 Smaranda Bara (n 65) point 81. See also the Explanations, Explanation on Article 52.

141 WebMindLicenses (n 41) para 91.

142 Perhaps Joined Cases C-29/13 and C-30/13 Global Trans Lodzhistik [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:140 para 57; and Case C-276/12 Jiří Sabou [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:678 paras 28 and 38.

143 WebMindLicenses (n 41) para 91.

144 Case C-492/08 Commission v France [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:348, para 1; Case C-492/08 Commission v France [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:72, Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen, point 1.

145 Commission v France (n 144) para 23.

146 Ibid, para 26.

147 In the Explanations, seventh paragraph of the Explanation on Article 47, reference is made to ECHR judgment of 9 October 1979, Airey, Series A, Volume 32, p 11.

148 Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Case C-492/08 Commission v France (n 144) point 34.

149 Commission v France (n 144) para 47. See also Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 31) para 68.

150 Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-543/14 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 65) point 38.

151 Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Case C-492/08 Commission v France (n 144) point 17.

152 Ibid, points 18–24.

153 Ibid, point 24.

154 Ibid, point 30.

155 Ibid, point 31.

156 Ibid, point 32.

157 Ibid, point 34.

158 Ibid, point 35.

159 Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-543/14 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 65) point 38.

160 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 31) para 18. The VAT exemption originated from a transitional provision in the Sixth VAT Directive; see the Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-543/14 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 65) point 1.

161 Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-543/14 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 65) point 28.

162 Ibid, point 2.

163 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 31) para 21.

164 Ibid, para 69.

165 Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-543/14 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 65) points 61 and 101–109.

166 Especially with regard to Case C-390/15 RPO which is not yet decided by CJEU. See also Rita Szudoczky, The Sources of EU Law and Their Relationships: Lessons for the Field of Taxation (Amsterdam IBFD 2014), pp 111–116; Christian Amand, ‘VAT Neutrality: A Principle of EU Law or a Principle of the VAT System?’ (2013) 2 World Journal of VAT/GST Law 164; and Frans Vanistendael, ‘The Role of (Legal) Principles in EU Tax Law’ in Cécile Brokelind (ed) Principles of Law: Function Status and Impact in EU Tax Law (Amsterdam, IBFD 2014), p 41.

167 Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-543/14 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, (n 65) point 36.

168 Ibid, point 37; and Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 31) para 26.

169 Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-543/14 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 65) point 38.

170 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 31) para 28.

171 Ibid, para 31. See Case C-279/09 DEB [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:811, para. 61; Case C-156/12 GREP [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:811, para 46; and Case C-61/14 Orizzonte Salute [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:655, paras 48, 49 and 58.

172 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 31) paras 33–35; and Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-543/14 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 65) points 82–87.

173 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (n 31) para 38.

174 Ibid, para 39.

175 Ibid, paras 43–45.

176 Ibid, para 46.

177 Eg RPO (n 166).

178 Joined Cases C-144/13, C-154/13 and C-160/13 VDP Dental Laboratory [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:116, para 22.

179 Ibid, para 24.

180 Joined Cases C-144/13, C-154/13 and C-160/13, VDP Dental Laboratory [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:2163, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, point 83, where reference was made to Case C-240/05 Eurodental [2006] ECLI:EU:C:2006:763, paras 48–53.

181 Ibid, point 84.

182 Ibid, point 84.

183 Ibid, point 85.

184 The ambition of achieving a common consensus in the EU on a definitive VAT system was recently expressed in the EU VAT Action Plan: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on an action plan on VAT Towards a single EU VAT area—Time to decide, COM(2016) 148 final of 7 April 2016.

185 Poelmann (n 12) p 178, para 4.

186 Nicolaou (n 29) p 10.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the The Danish Council for Independent Research [grant number DFF—6109-00146].