Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 September 2026.#AS „Trading 4” v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts).#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of valued added tax (VAT) – Exemptions for intra-community transactions – Exemption related to the supply of goods – Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC – Exemptions for intra-Community acquisitions of goods – Article 141 of Directive 2006/112 – Chain of supplies with a single intra-Community transport – Triangular transaction – Ascription of the transport – Transport under an excise duty suspension arrangement – Transfer of the right to dispose of goods to the person acquiring the goods.#Case T-614/25.

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

9 September 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of valued added tax (VAT) – Exemptions for intra-community transactions – Exemption related to the supply of goods – Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC – Exemptions for intra-Community acquisitions of goods – Article 141 of Directive 2006/112 – Chain of supplies with a single intra-Community transport – Triangular transaction – Ascription of the transport – Transport under an excise duty suspension arrangement – Transfer of the right to dispose of goods to the person acquiring the goods )

In Case T‑614/25,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Supreme Court (Senate), Latvia), made by decision of 25 August 2025, received at the Court on 25 August 2025, in the proceedings

AS ‘Trading 4’

v

Valsts ieņēmumu dienests,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges),

composed of N. Półtorak (Rapporteur), President, G. Hesse, G. Steinfatt, D. Petrlík and I. Dimitrakopoulos, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Brkan,

Registrar: V. Di Bucci,

having regard to the transmission of the request for a preliminary ruling to the General Court by the Court of Justice on 25 August 2025, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,

having regard to the fact that the case concerns the area referred to in point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the fact that there is no independent question relating to interpretation within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 50b of that statute,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        the Latvian Government, by K. Pommere and S. Zellis, acting as Agents,

–        the Czech Government, by L. Březinová, L. Halajová and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents,

–        the European Commission, by M. Björkland, M. Herold and V. Hitrovs, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 138(1), Article 141 and Article 197(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016 (OJ 2016 L 177, p. 9) (‘the VAT Directive’).

2        The request has been made in proceedings between AS ‘Trading 4’, a company incorporated under Latvian law, and the Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (National Tax Authority, Latvia) concerning the exemption from value added tax (VAT) for supplies, made in the context of a chain of various successive supplies involving a single transport within the European Union, to undertakings established in Estonia and the United Kingdom, of goods subject to excise duty and transported, under the duty suspension arrangement, to customers of those undertakings, in other Member States of the European Union.

 Legal framework

 European Union law

3        Article 14(1) of the VAT Directive is worded as follows:

‘“Supply of goods” shall mean the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner.’

4        The first paragraph of Article 20 of the VAT Directive provides:

‘“Intra-Community acquisition of goods” shall mean the acquisition of the right to dispose as owner of movable tangible property dispatched or transported to the person acquiring the goods, by or on behalf of the vendor or the person acquiring the goods, in a Member State other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods began.’

5        Article 40 of the VAT Directive provides:

‘The place of an intra-Community acquisition of goods shall be deemed to be the place where dispatch or transport of the goods to the person acquiring them ends.’

6        Article 41 of the VAT Directive provides:

‘Without prejudice to Article 40, the place of an intra-Community acquisition of goods as referred to in Article 2(1)(b)(i) shall be deemed to be within the territory of the Member State which issued the VAT identification number under which the person acquiring the goods made the acquisition, unless the person acquiring the goods establishes that VAT has been applied to that acquisition in accordance with Article 40.

If VAT is applied to the acquisition in accordance with the first paragraph and subsequently applied, pursuant to Article 40, to the acquisition in the Member State in which dispatch or transport of the goods ends, the taxable amount shall be reduced accordingly in the Member State which issued the VAT identification number under which the person acquiring the goods made the acquisition.’

7        Article 42 of the VAT Directive provides:

‘The first paragraph of Article 41 shall not apply and VAT shall be deemed to have been applied to the intra-Community acquisition of goods in accordance with Article 40 where the following conditions are met:

(a)      the person acquiring the goods establishes that he has made the intra-Community acquisition for the purposes of a subsequent supply, within the territory of the Member State identified in accordance with Article 40, for which the person to whom the supply is made has been designated in accordance with Article 197 as liable for payment of VAT;

(b)      the person acquiring the goods has satisfied the obligations laid down in Article 265 relating to submission of the recapitulative statement.’

8        Under Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive:

‘1.      Member States shall exempt the supply of goods dispatched or transported to a destination outside their respective territory but within the Community, by or on behalf of the vendor or the person acquiring the goods, for another taxable person, or for a non-taxable legal person acting as such in a Member State other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods began.’

9        Article 141 of the VAT Directive is worded as follows:

‘Each Member State shall take specific measures to ensure that VAT is not charged on the intra-Community acquisition of goods within its territory, made in accordance with Article 40, where the following conditions are met:

(a)      the acquisition of goods is made by a taxable person who is not established in the Member State concerned but is identified for VAT purposes in another Member State;

(b)      the acquisition of goods is made for the purposes of the subsequent supply of those goods, in the Member State concerned, by the taxable person referred to in point (a);

(c)      the goods thus acquired by the taxable person referred to in point (a) are directly dispatched or transported, from a Member State other than that in which he is identified for VAT purposes, to the person for whom he is to carry out the subsequent supply;

(d)      the person to whom the subsequent supply is to be made is another taxable person, or a non-taxable legal person, who is identified for VAT purposes in the Member State concerned;

(e)      the person referred to in point (d) has been designated in accordance with Article 197 as liable for payment of the VAT due on the supply carried out by the taxable person who is not established in the Member State in which the tax is due.’

10      Article 197(1) of the VAT Directive provides:

‘1.      VAT shall be payable by the person to whom the goods are supplied when the following conditions are met:

(a)      the taxable transaction is a supply of goods carried out in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 141;

(b)      the person to whom the goods are supplied is another taxable person, or a non-taxable legal person, identified for VAT purposes in the Member State in which the supply is carried out;

(c)      the invoice issued by the taxable person not established in the Member State of the person to whom the goods are supplied is drawn up in accordance with Sections 3 to 5 of Chapter 3.’

 Latvian law

11      Article 5(1) of the Pievienotās vērtības nodokļa likums (Law on value added tax) of 29 November 2012 (Latvijas Vēstnesis, 2012, No 197) provides in points 1 and 3 thereof:

‘The following domestic transactions carried out in the course of an economic activity constitute taxable transactions:

1)      the supply of goods (including the supply of goods within the territory of the European Union and the exportation of goods) for consideration;

…

3)      the acquisition of goods for consideration within the territory of the European Union.’

12      Article 43(4) of the Law on value added tax provides:

‘The 0% tax rate shall apply to supplies of goods carried out within the territory of the European Union, if the following two conditions are satisfied:

1)      the consignee appearing in the transport documents for the goods and in the tax invoice has provided the supplier with a tax registration number of a taxable person in another Member State which was valid at the time of the transaction;

2)      the goods are dispatched or transported from the territory of Latvia to their destination in another Member State and that is reflected in the transport documents held by the supplier.’

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

13      Trading 4 is a company registered as a taxable person for VAT purposes in Latvia. Between January 2016 and January 2017, it supplied petroleum products under an excise duty suspension arrangement to several undertakings established in Estonia and the United Kingdom (together, ‘taxable persons B’), which were not registered as taxable persons for VAT purposes in Latvia, but were registered, respectively, in Estonia and the United Kingdom.

14      On the same dates on which taxable persons B acquired the goods from Trading 4, taxable persons B resold those goods to their own counterparties (together, ‘taxable persons C’) in EU Member States other than Estonia and the United Kingdom.

15      The goods were transported directly from Trading 4 to taxable persons C, thus creating a chain of successive supplies involving a single act of intra-EU transport.

16      In that context, Trading 4 applied a VAT rate of 0% to the supplies of goods made to taxable persons B.

17      Following an inspection, the tax authority took the view that Trading 4 should not have applied a VAT rate of 0% to the supplies which it had made to taxable persons B (‘the supplies at issue’). That authority argued that taxable persons B had transferred ownership of the goods to taxable persons C before those goods were transported from Trading 4’s warehouse to the premises of taxable persons C, a fact of which Trading 4 was aware. That authority concluded that the supplies at issue had to be regarded as domestic supplies, in Latvia, subject to the standard rate of VAT. The tax authority added that taxable persons B were required to register as taxable persons for VAT purposes in Latvia and, furthermore, that, by those transactions, Trading 4 had participated in a VAT evasion scheme.

18      Consequently, on 7 June 2019, the tax authority adopted a decision by which it applied a standard rate of VAT to the supplies at issue and imposed a number of corrective measures on Trading 4.

19      Trading 4 brought an appeal against that decision before the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court, Latvia). In support of its action, it claimed that it had made intra-Community supplies and that those supplies were subject to a VAT rate of 0%.

20      By judgment of 6 February 2024, the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court) dismissed the appeal. That court held, in essence, that the supplies of goods from Trading 4 to taxable persons B had taken place in Latvian national territory and that it was therefore appropriate to apply the standard rate of VAT to those supplies. Ownership of the goods concerned was deemed to have been transferred from Trading 4 to taxable persons B at the time when those goods were handed over to the carrier of the goods. It stated that taxable persons B had asked Trading 4 to include information about other undertakings on the Cargo Movement Requirement (CMR) international consignment note, which allegedly enabled Trading 4 to understand that the goods concerned were immediately being resold in a third Member State.

21      Trading 4 brought an appeal on a point of law against the judgment of the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Regional Administrative Court) before the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Supreme Court (Senate), Latvia), which is the referring court.

22      In its appeal on a point of law, Trading 4 claims, first, that the goods in question are subject to excise duty and supplied under an excise duty suspension arrangement in the European Union. It argues that, in such circumstances, the transfer of the right to dispose of the goods as owner to taxable persons B only took place upon reception of those goods in an excise warehouse located in another Member State of the European Union. Moreover, ownership of the goods was only transferred to taxable persons C after those goods were delivered to their destination and after the electronic administrative document was signed. It claims that in order to assess when the transfer of ownership took place, taxable persons B should be regarded as the organisers of the transport of the goods and that there is no reason to consider that the transport was organised by taxable persons C. Second, Trading 4 claims that it had not been informed that the goods concerned were supplied by taxable persons B to taxable persons C immediately before their transport. Third, Trading 4 complains that the tax authority infringed the principle of VAT neutrality by requiring it to pay VAT in Latvia despite the fact that VAT had already been paid on the same goods by taxable persons C in the Member State of destination.

23      In those circumstances, the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Supreme Court, (Senate)) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)      Must Article 138(1) of [the VAT Directive], read together with Article 141 and Article 197(1) of that directive, be interpreted as meaning that, where products subject to excise duty are supplied under a duty suspension arrangement in a triangular transaction and the person liable for the VAT is determined to be the taxable person for the purposes of that tax established in a third Member State, that in itself constitutes a reason – in accordance with Article 138(1) of that directive – for exempting from that tax the supply carried out by the taxable person for VAT purposes established in the first Member State to the taxable person for VAT purposes established in the second Member State, on the condition that it is proved in the proceedings that the goods were actually exported from the first Member State and were delivered in the third Member State?

(2)      In the case of a triangular transaction, must Article 138(1) of [the VAT Directive] be interpreted as meaning that, where the taxable person for VAT purposes established in the first Member State is informed that the taxable person for VAT purposes established in the second Member State will subsequently supply the goods, immediately, to a taxable person for VAT purposes established in a third Member State, before the goods leave the first Member State and are transported to that taxable person in the third Member State, the supply carried out by the taxable person established in the first Member State to the taxable person established in the second Member State is not exempt from VAT?

(3)      Is Article 141 of [the VAT Directive] applicable where, following a triangular transaction, an undertaking in the third Member State resells those same goods in the course of that same single transport operation within the territory of the European Union?’

 Consideration of the questions referred

 The first question

24      By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive, read in conjunction with Article 141 and Article 197(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the circumstances that (i) a supply of goods which are subject to excise duty is made under an excise duty suspension arrangement, (ii) it is established that, in the context of a triangular transaction, the taxable person registered for VAT in the third Member State is liable for payment of VAT, and (iii) it is proved that the goods actually left the first Member State and that they were supplied in the third Member State, constitute, in themselves, a ground for exempting from VAT a supply made by a taxable person registered for VAT in the first Member State to an intermediary acquiring the goods registered for VAT in the second Member State.

25      As set out in Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive, Member States are to exempt the supply of goods dispatched or transported to a destination outside their respective territory but within the European Union, by or on behalf of the vendor or the person acquiring the goods, for another taxable person, or for a non-taxable legal person acting as such in a Member State other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods began.

26      For that exemption to apply, the right to dispose of the goods as owner must have been transferred to the person acquiring the goods, the supplier must establish that the goods have been dispatched or transported to another Member State and that, as a result of that dispatch or transport, the goods have physically left the territory of the Member State of supply (see judgment of 26 July 2017, Toridas, C‑386/16, EU:C:2017:599, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).

27      In the case of a chain of two successive supplies that have given rise to only a single intra-Community transport, that transport can be ascribed to only one of the two supplies, which, therefore, will alone be exempted under Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive (see judgment of 26 July 2017, Toridas, C‑386/16, EU:C:2017:599, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).

28      In that regard, the referring court observes, in paragraph 10 of the order for reference, that Article 36a of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2018/1910 of 4 December 2018 (OJ 2018 L 311, p. 3), lays down the detailed rules for determining to which of the successive supplies the transport is to be ascribed. However, the dispute in the main proceedings concerns supplies made by Trading 4 between 2016 and 2017. Accordingly, that provision is not applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings.

29      It follows from the case-law that, in order to determine which of the two supplies the intra-Community transport must be ascribed to, it is necessary to undertake an overall assessment of all the specific circumstances of the case (see judgment of 26 July 2017, Toridas, C‑386/16, EU:C:2017:599, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

30      In that assessment, it must be determined in particular when the second transfer of the right to dispose of the goods as owner, to the person finally acquiring the goods, has occurred. In a situation where the second transfer of that right, that is to say, the second supply, has taken place before the intra-Community transport occurs, the intra-Community transport cannot be ascribed to the first supply to the first person acquiring the goods (see judgment of 26 July 2017, Toridas, C‑386/16, EU:C:2017:599, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).

31      With regard to the condition relating to the transfer of the right to dispose of property as owner, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court that it is not restricted to the transfer in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the applicable national law but covers any transfer of tangible property by one party which empowers the other party actually to dispose of it as if he or she were its owner. A transfer of the power to dispose of tangible property as owner does not require that the party to whom the property is transferred must physically possess it or that it must be physically transported to its premises and/or received by that party (see judgment of 19 December 2018, AREX CZ, C‑414/17, EU:C:2018:1027, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited).

32      Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the existence of a transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner means that the party to whom the right is transferred has the right to take decisions which are capable of affecting the legal situation of the property concerned, including, inter alia, the decision to sell it (judgment of 23 April 2020, Herst, C‑401/18, EU:C:2020:295, paragraph 40).

33      Therefore, in that context, the referring court will have to, inter alia, take into account whether the operator concerned initiated the transport for the purpose of carrying out its own economic activity; whether that operator, directly or indirectly, bears the costs and makes the logistical arrangements associated with the movement of the goods; whether it mobilises its own material resources for carrying out the operation; whether it exercises actual or functional control over the movement of the goods or whether the transport is part of a resale or commercial operation carried out on its own account (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 April 2020, Herst, C‑401/18, EU:C:2020:295, paragraphs 48 and 49).

34      By contrast, the fact that the fuel transport at issue in the main proceedings was carried out under an excise duty suspension arrangement is not a decisive factor in determining to which of the supplies of the chain at issue that transport must be ascribed (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2018, AREX CZ, C‑414/17, EU:C:2018:1027, paragraph 73).

35      First, the fact that the goods in question are transported under an excise duty suspension arrangement in no way affects the conditions governing the transfer of the right to dispose of those goods as owner (judgment of 19 December 2018, AREX CZ, C‑414/17, EU:C:2018:1027, paragraph 76).

36      Second, the chargeable event for VAT, by virtue of which the legal conditions necessary for VAT to become chargeable are fulfilled, is the supply or import of the goods, not the levying of excise duty on the latter (judgment of 19 December 2018, AREX CZ, C‑414/17, EU:C:2018:1027, paragraph 77).

37      In addition, it should be noted that the time of signature of the electronic administrative document – which is established in accordance with Article 21 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12), for movements of excise goods under suspension of excise duty – has no impact on determining the point in time when the transfer of the right to dispose of the goods in question as owner takes place. Although a report of receipt of such a document is capable of showing that those goods actually left the territory of the Member State of dispatch and were dispatched or transported to another Member State within the meaning of Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 June 2018, Enteco Baltic, C‑108/17, EU:C:2018:473, paragraph 76), it does not affect the conditions governing the transfer of the right to dispose of those goods as owner.

38      Furthermore, in the context of the triangular transaction at issue in the main proceedings, neither the fact that taxable persons C, registered for VAT in the third Member State, are liable for payment of VAT, nor the fact that it is established that the goods physically left the territory of the first Member State to be transported to the territory of the third Member State have any bearing on the question whether the right to dispose of the goods as owner has been transferred to the person acquiring the goods.

39      In that regard, it should be borne in mind that a triangular transaction is a transaction by which goods are supplied by a supplier, identified for VAT purposes in one Member State, to an intermediary acquiring the goods, identified for VAT purposes in a second Member State, who, in turn, supplies those goods to a final customer, identified for VAT purposes in a third Member State, those goods being transported directly from the first Member State to the third Member State (judgment of 8 December 2022, Luxury Trust Automobil, C‑247/21, EU:C:2022:966, paragraph 41).

40      The conclusion set out in paragraph 38 above cannot be invalidated by Article 141 of the VAT Directive, which concerns the simplification arrangement applicable to triangular transactions. The derogation set out in Article 141 of the VAT Directive consists, first, in exempting the intra-Community acquisition carried out by the intermediary acquiring the goods, who is identified for VAT purposes in the second Member State and, second, in transferring liability for the taxation of that acquisition to the final customer, established and identified for VAT purposes in the third Member State, the intermediary acquiring the goods being exempt from the requirement to identify itself for VAT purposes in that latter Member State (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 December 2022, Luxury Trust Automobil, C‑247/21, EU:C:2022:966, paragraph 43).

41      Accordingly, the application of the simplification mechanism provided for in Article 141 of the VAT Directive presupposes that an intermediary operator, such as taxable persons B, carries out an intra-Community acquisition, which can only be characterised as such if the first transaction, between a supplier, such as Trading 4, and that intermediary, is classed as an exempt intra-Community supply under Article 138(1) of that directive.

42      Therefore, the fact that, in the case at issue in the main proceedings, taxable persons B and C made use of that simplification arrangement is irrelevant for the purpose of determining to which of the two supplies the intra-Community transport must be ascribed.

43      Furthermore, the conditions laid down in Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive, as set out in paragraph 24 above, do not make the exemption of an intra-Community supply conditional upon the intermediary acquiring the goods being liable for payment of VAT and the corresponding intra-Community acquisition being in fact subject to that tax.

44      Therefore, it will be for the referring court, which alone is competent to assess the facts, to determine, in accordance with paragraph 33 above, at what point in time the right to dispose of the goods as owner was transferred to the person acquiring the goods, and in particular whether the second transfer of that right, namely the second supply to taxable persons C, took place before the intra-Community transport occurred, irrespective of whether the supply of goods subject to excise duty was carried out under an excise duty suspension arrangement; whether taxable persons C, registered for VAT in the third Member State, are liable for payment of VAT, and whether it is proved that those goods in fact left the first Member State and that they were supplied in the third Member State.

45      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question referred is that Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive, read in conjunction with Article 141 and Article 197(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the circumstances that (i) a supply of goods which are subject to excise duty is made under an excise duty suspension arrangement, (ii) it is established that, in the context of a triangular transaction, the taxable person registered for VAT in the third Member State is liable for payment of VAT, and (iii) it is proved that the goods actually left the first Member State and that they were supplied in the third Member State, do not constitute, in themselves, a ground for exempting from VAT a supply made by a taxable person registered for VAT in the first Member State to an intermediary acquiring the goods registered for VAT in the second Member State.

 The second question

46      In the light of the answer given to the first question, it is not necessary to examine the second question, as that question was asked by the referring court only in the event that the first question should be answered in the affirmative.

 The third question

47      By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the simplification arrangement provided for in Article 141 of the VAT Directive applies where, following a triangular transaction, the taxable person established in the third Member State resells the goods within the European Union.

48      The Commission has doubts as to the admissibility of the third question referred.

49      It should be borne in mind that questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court, in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The EU judicature may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling from a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought is unrelated to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see judgment of 4 June 2026, Darashev, C‑312/24, EU:C:2026:449, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).

50      In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the dispute in the main proceedings does not concern the application of the simplification arrangement provided for in Article 141 of the VAT Directive, which concerns taxable persons B, established in the second Member State, but rather the application of Article 138(1) of that directive, read in the light of Article 141 thereof, to transactions carried out by Trading 4, established in the first Member State. As observed in paragraph 42 above, the application of that simplification measure is irrelevant as regards the application of Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive. Therefore, the third question bears no relation to the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings.

51      It follows that the third question is inadmissible.

 Costs

52      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

hereby rules:

Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016, read in conjunction with Article 141 and Article 197(1) thereof,

must be interpreted as meaning that the circumstances that (i) a supply of goods which are subject to excise duty is made under an excise duty suspension arrangement, (ii) it is established that, in the context of a triangular transaction, the taxable person registered for VAT in the third Member State is liable for payment of VAT, and (iii) it is proved that the goods actually left the first Member State and that they were supplied in the third Member State, do not constitute, in themselves, a ground for exempting from VAT a supply made by a taxable person registered for VAT in the first Member State to an intermediary acquiring the goods registered for VAT in the second Member State.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 September 2026.

[Signatures]

---

*      Language of the case: Latvian.