Opinion of Mr Advocate General Cruz Vilaça delivered on 27 January 1988

1 Translated from the Portuguese.

2 Official Journal 1977 L 145, p. 1.

3 Decision 85/369/EEC, with effect from 13 June 1985 (Official Journal 1985, L 199, p. 60).

4 Judgment of 13 February 1985 in Case 5/84 Direct Cosmetics v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1985] ECR 617.

5 Decision 85/369/EEC (Official Journal 1985, L 199, p. 60).

6 Official Journal, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14.

7 Official Journal, English Special Edition 1967, p. 16.

8 See the declaration set out in the minutes of the Council meeting at which the Sixth Directive was adopted, which is referred to by the United Kingdom in its observations and which was referred to by the Court in paragraph 26 of its judgment of 10 April 1984 in Case 324/82 Commission v Belgium [1984] ECR 1861, at p. 1881.

9 [1985] ECR 617, at p. 626.

10 See paragraph 27 of the judgment of 13 February 1985 in Direct Cosmetics.

11 Judgment referred to above.

12 Official Journal L 188 of 8 July 1987, p. 52.

13 Cited above, paragraph 29 of the judgment.

14 There is no need at this juncture to discuss the effect on the basic concept of value-added tax of introducing in Article 11. A. 1 (a) of the Sixth Directive the reference to subsidies directly linked to the price of such supplies and their inclusion in the consideration which constitutes the basis of assessment of the tax. That reference reflects a compromise in the directive between treating value-added tax as a business tax and as a consumer tax, which, in the former case, is charged on the value added to the cost of the components used and, in the latter case, is charged on the value added to market prices.

15 Supplement 11/73 to the Bulletin of the European Communities, p. 8.

16 Judgment of 12 June 1979 in Joined Cases 181 and 229/78 [1979] ECR 2063.

17 Or its current value.