Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mancini

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. In Cases 269/86 and 289/86 to which this Opinion refers, the Court has once again to determine whether illegal dealing in drugs is subject to value-added tax.

5. Consequently the Hoge Raad's question and the Gerechtshof's first question should be answered as follows: in so far as sales of drugs within the territory of a Member State take part outside legal Community channels they cause no liability to value-added tax to arise. Having reached that conclusion we must tackle the Gerechtshof's second question. After remarking that the illegal imports with which the Court had to deal in its previous judgments were all of hard drugs (heroin, morphine, cocaine), the Gerechtshof wishes to establish whether the rule that no turnover tax arises also applies to sales of soft drugs and, in particular, of hemp products.

6. The third question raises more complex problems. The Gerechtshof asks the Court whether if sales of hashish are held not to be liable to value-added tax must a different view of the question be taken where the national judicial authorities forgo prosecuting dealers in certain circumstances.

7. In the light of the above considerations I propose that the Court should answer the questions put by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of 29 October 1986 in the proceedings between Willem Mol and Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Leeuwarden, and by the Gerechtshof, Amsterdam, by judgment of 28 October 1986 in the proceedings between Vereniging Happy Family and Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting, Amsterdam, in the following terms:

1 Translated from the Italian.