Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mancini

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. The Finanzgericht [Finance Court] Hamburg, has made a reference to the Court on the interpretation of Article 9(1) and Article 15 (8) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC, of 17 May 1977), on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment (Official Journal 1977, L 145, p. 1) in connection with a case concerning the liability to value-added tax of earnings made by a German undertaking which operates gaming machines on ferry boats plying between the Federai Republic of Germany and Denmark. In particular, the Finanzgericht asks the Court to interpret the term fixed establishment used in the provision defining the place where a service is provided and the exemption provided for in respect of services to meet the direct needs of seagoing vessels.

2. Question 1 seeks to establish the place where transactions are to be deemed to have taken place for tax purposes where the services in question were provided by gaming machines on ships plying between the territories of two Member States.

3. I shall add a few words on the second question, concerning the possible exemption of the services at issue. The applicant in the main proceedings considers that the exemption should apply. The argument is that the passengers and crew of ships, in particular of ferry boats, need to be entertained; the gaming machines satisfy that need and so can be said to be intended, as Article 15 (8) of the Sixth Directive states, to meet the direct needs of the seagoing vessels... or of their cargoes.

4. On all the above grounds I propose that the Court should answer the questions raised by the Seventh Senate of the Finanzgericht Hamburg, by order of 30 April 1984, in the case of Gunter Berkholz, proprietor of the undertaking abe-Werbung, and Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte-Altstadt in the following terms :

1 Translated from the Italian