# C_2015429EN.01000302.xml

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Saudaçor — Sociedade Gestora de Recursos e Equipamentos da Saúde dos Açores SA v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-174/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 13(1) - Treatment as a non-taxable person - Concept of ‘body governed by public law’ - Limited company which is responsible for the provision of services in respect of the planning and management of the health service of the Autonomous Region of the Azores - Determination of the detailed arrangements for those services, including their remuneration, in programme agreements concluded between that company and that region))

(2015/C 429/04)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Saudaçor — Sociedade Gestora de Recursos e Equipamentos da Saúde dos Açores SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company provides a region with services in respect of the planning and management of the regional health service under the programme agreements concluded between that company and that region, constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company provides a region with services in respect of the planning and management of the regional health service under the programme agreements concluded between that company and that region, constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of that provision.

| 2. | Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company provides a region with services in respect of the planning and management of the regional health service under the programme agreements concluded between that company and that region, falls under the rule of treatment as a non-taxable person for value added tax purposes, laid down by that provision, in a situation where that activity constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive, if, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, it can be considered that that company must be classified as a body governed by public law and that it carries out that activity as a public authority, in so far as the referring court finds that the exemption of that activity is not such as to lead to significant distortions of competition. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a company provides a region with services in respect of the planning and management of the regional health service under the programme agreements concluded between that company and that region, falls under the rule of treatment as a non-taxable person for value added tax purposes, laid down by that provision, in a situation where that activity constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive, if, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, it can be considered that that company must be classified as a body governed by public law and that it carries out that activity as a public authority, in so far as the referring court finds that the exemption of that activity is not such as to lead to significant distortions of competition.

In that context, the concept of ‘other bodies governed by public law’ within the meaning of Article 13(1) of that directive must not be interpreted by reference to the definition of ‘body governed by public law’ in Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

1

---