Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2026:29
Date: 2026-01-22
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Second Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Translation C-379/24 – 1 
Case C-379/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
28 May 2024 
Referring court: 
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
22 April 2024 
Appellant: 
Agrupació de Neteja Sanitaria AIE 
Respondent: 
Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Cataluña 
(TEARC) 
  
… 
[Attestation] 
TRIBUNAL SUPERIOR DE JUSTICIA DE CATALUNYA 
(High Court of Justice, Catalonia, Spain) 
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION 
FIRST SECTION 
… 
[Details of the appeal] 
ORDER 
… 
[Composition of the court] 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 22. 4. 2024 – CASE C-379/24 
 
2 
Barcelona, 22 April 2024. 
FACTS 
FIRST. The procedural representative of ‘AGRUPACIÓ DE NETEJA 
SANITARIA AIE’ (‘ANS AIE’) lodged an appeal against the decision of 
15 September 2021 of the Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de 
Cataluña (Regional Tax Tribunal, Catalonia, Spain; ‘the TEARC’) dismissing the 
administrative complaint brought by ANS AIE against the assessment issued by 
the regional inspectorate of the Agencia Española de Administración Tributaria 
(Spanish Tax Administration Agency), in respect of VALUE ADDED TAX 
(‘VAT’) for the periods from 2013, first quarter, to 2014, fourth quarter, on the 
basis that the exemption under Article 20(1)(6) of the Ley del IVA 37/1992, de 28 
de diciembre (Law No 37/1992 of 28 December 1992 on value added tax; ‘the 
VAT Law’) does not apply. 
[Procedure relating to the request for a preliminary ruling and stay of proceedings] 
LAW 
SOLE POINT. With a view to resolving the dispute, [the referring court is] 
uncertain regarding the interpretation to be given to the [relevant] EU legislation, 
also taking into consideration the different rulings which the Court of Justice has 
already made regarding the same provision. Specifically, Article 132(1)(f) of 
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of 
value added tax, concerning exemptions for certain activities in the public interest, 
which has been transposed into the Spanish legal system by means of 
Article 20(1)(6) of the VAT Law, governing exemptions for domestic 
transactions. 
In accordance with the foregoing and taking account of the ‘Recommendations to 
national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling 
proceedings’, drawn up by the Court of Justice itself and published in the Official 
Journal of the European Union (2019/C 380/01), and the powers conferred on the 
Court of Justice of the European Union in Article 19(3)(b) TEU and Article 267 
TFEU, this request for preliminary ruling is made on the basis of the following 
paragraphs: 
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISPUTE 
1. Analysing the legality of the administrative decision of the Catalan Regional 
Tax Tribunal upholding the refusal of an exemption from the VAT assessed by the 
tax inspectorate, which, on the basis of other earlier decisions of the same 
authority, also refused the exemption on account of the fact that the cleaning 
service was not provided in the activity of healthcare – which is an exempt 
activity – directly ‘by associations, groupings or autonomous entities, including 
Economic Interest Groupings, made up exclusively of persons carrying on an 
exempt activity …’. The appellant (ANS AIE) maintains that, for cleaning services 
AGRUPACIÓ DE NETEJA SANITARIA 
 
3 
in the area of healthcare, the exemption cannot be interpreted in a restrictive 
manner, as the tax authority does, based on the national provision, since the 
purpose of the exemption would be neutralised if VAT were required to be paid 
on such cleaning services, those services being necessary for the exempt activity – 
healthcare and hospitals – which is in the interests of society as a whole. 
RELEVANT FACTS 
2. The appellant was established as an ‘Agrupación de Interés Económico’ 
(Economic Interest Grouping; AIE) on 11 February 2017, with two constituent 
members, Fundación Benéfica Part Hospital Sant Joan de Deu de Martorell and 
Mutua de Terrassa Mutualidad de Previsió Social a Prima Fija, which were 
subsequently joined by Fundació Privada Residencia Sant Joan de Deu de 
Martorell. The aim was to create shared infrastructure for the members with 
regard to the provision of comprehensive cleaning service in the hospitals, centres 
and buildings in general in which the members carry on their healthcare and 
health and social care activities. On 23 July 2021 it applied for and on 30 August 
2012 it obtained the certificate acknowledging its right to the exemption, 
conditional on fulfilment of the requirements for benefiting from that right. 
3. On 1 June 2012, the appellant concluded a contract with ISS FACILITY 
MANAGEMENT SPAIN SAU (‘ISS FACILITY’), under which the latter would 
take on the administrative management of the staff hired by the appellant, ANS 
AIE. ISS FACILITY thus assigned the staff to the facilities and also assigned the 
tasks; it selects the staff, prepares their payslips, handles incidents, ensures that 
sufficient training is given to meet legislative requirements, supplies materials 
and, moreover, may be authorised by the appellant to conclude employment 
contracts and appear before courts and tribunals and public bodies in the event of 
disputes. The contract justifies the subcontracting of that activity on the basis that 
ISS FACILITY has the experience, knowledge and resources necessary to conduct 
the management of the cleaning services which ANS AIE provides to its 
members. 
4. On 2 June 2017, inspection proceedings were initiated in relation to the 
appellant and relating to VAT for the periods from 2013, second quarter, to 2014, 
fourth quarter, which concluded with the assessment for VAT on the transactions 
carried out by ANS AIE on account of the provision of the cleaning services to its 
members. The basis for that assessment was that the exemption provided for in 
Article 20(1)(6) of the VAT Law cannot be applied, as the appellant did not 
provide the services directly, but rather it used an external company which 
actually carries out an essential part of them. Furthermore, the cleaning services 
are not linked, directly and exclusively, to the exempt activity and, therefore, the 
application of the exemption could lead to a distortion of competition. In short, the 
requirements of Article 20(1)(6) of the VAT Law are not met and VAT at the 
general rate is to be charged to the purchaser of the service. The TEARC 
confirmed that decision on the basis of a judgment given by the Audiencia 
Nacional (National High Court, Spain) on 30 June 2017, which held, in essence, 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 22. 4. 2024 – CASE C-379/24 
 
4 
that the direct provision of the service was an indispensable requirement for the 
exemption from VAT under Article 20(1)(6) of the VAT Law to apply, since, 
otherwise, there would be a real risk of distortion of competition. 
5. Against that decision confirming the applicability of VAT to the cleaning 
services provided by ANS AIE to its members, the appellant brought an 
administrative appeal before this court, emphasising the fact that the TEAC 
(Central Tax Tribunal, Spain; the upper body of the TEARC) has accepted the 
interpretation given in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 September 2017, 
in Case C-616/15, regarding the possibility that the support services necessary for 
the exempt activity may, for reasons of economies of scale, be delegated to 
entities whose management is shared. That means that the exemption cannot be 
refused on the ground that the administrative management of the staff has been 
subcontracted out to a third-party company that works with the AIE, as it 
contributes to [achieving] the aim of the exemption and is in the spirit of the rule. 
The discussion, therefore, centres on requirement (a) of Article [20](1)(6) of the 
VAT Law. 
APPLICABLE NATIONAL LAW 
6. Article 20(1)(6) of the VAT Law, as worded in the version in force from 
1 January 2013 (emphasis added), that being the version relevant to the periods 
assessed [for VAT]: 
‘TITLE II 
Exemptions 
CHAPTER I 
Supply of goods and services 
Article 20: Exemptions for domestic transactions 
1. The following transactions shall be exempt from this tax: 
… 
(6) Services provided directly to their members by associations, groupings or 
autonomous entities, including Economic Interest Groupings, made up exclusively 
of persons carrying on an exempt activity or a non-taxable activity which does not 
give rise to a right of deduction, where the following conditions are satisfied: 
(a) such services are used directly and exclusively in the course of that 
activity and are necessary in order to carry it out; 
(b) the members are limited to reimbursing their share of the joint 
expenditure. 
AGRUPACIÓ DE NETEJA SANITARIA 
 
5 
The exemption shall also apply where, the requirement provided for in point (b) 
above being satisfied, the proportional part of the deduction does not exceed 10% 
and the service is not used directly and exclusively in the activity giving rise to the 
right of deduction. 
The exemption does not extend to services provided by commercial companies.’ 
EUROPEAN UNION LAW 
7. Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 
on the common system of value added tax, appearing in Title IX, Chapter 2, under 
the heading ‘Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest’: 
‘Article 132 
1. Member States shall exempt the following transactions: 
… 
(f) the supply of services by independent groups of persons, who are carrying 
on an activity which is exempt from VAT or in relation to which they are 
not taxable persons, for the purpose of rendering their members the services 
directly necessary for the exercise of that activity, where those groups 
merely claim from their members exact reimbursement of their share of the 
joint expenses, provided that such exemption is not likely to cause 
distortion of competition’. 
RELEVANT CASE-LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE 
8. The judgments of the Court of Justice which are relevant to the 
consideration of this matter as regards the purpose of the exemption, its 
interpretation and limits, are the following – and those cited therein: 
Judgment of 20 November 2003, [Taksatorringen], C-8/01[, 
EU:C:2003:621] 
Judgment of 5 October 2016, TMD, C-412/15[, EU:C:2016:395] 
Judgment of 4 May 2017, [Commission v Luxembourg], C-274/15[, 
EU:C:2017:333] 
Judgment of 21 September 2017, [Commission v Germany], C-616/15[, 
EU:C:2017:721] 
Judgment of 21 November 2019, Infohos, C-400/18[, EU:C:2019:992] 
REASONING OF THIS COURT REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF 
ARTICLE 132(1)(f) OF DIRECTIVE 2006/112/EC OF 28 NOVEMBER 2006 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 22. 4. 2024 – CASE C-379/24 
 
6 
9. In the view of this court, the purpose of the exemption contained in 
Article 132(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC, expressed repeatedly by the Court of 
Justice as being to avoid the supply of those services which were included in the 
exemption for legitimate reasons of public interest ultimately being taxed, means 
that, while the interpretation must be strict on account of it being an exception to 
the general principle that VAT is always levied on the supply of services for 
consideration, it must not be restricted excessively by the Member States in 
transposing [that provision] into national law. If the services or activity are 
necessary for the exempt activity, requiring them to be linked directly and 
exclusively to that exempt activity means that, at times, it will not be possible to 
fulfil the acknowledged purpose of the exemption. 
10. It is true that the Court of Justice has itself stated that the Member States 
may lay down rules which allow the authorities to control the application of the 
exemption without any difficulty, but such national requirements established by 
the legislature cannot disregard the legitimate general and defining purpose of the 
exemptions provided for in that directive. An excessive restriction would render 
the exemption inoperative and would lead to an indirect increase in costs for 
activities exempt from VAT for reasons of public interest. 
11. It should also be noted that the EU provision – Article 132(1)(f) of Directive 
2006/112/EC – states, as an impassable limit, that the recognition of that 
exemption must not be likely to cause distortion of competition. So, while the fact 
that it is a service – cleaning – necessary for the exempt activity – healthcare – is 
not disputed, it posits that, if it cannot be linked ‘exclusively’ with an activity, it is 
capable of giving rise to anticompetitive practices, by removing an important 
economic sector from the market. That synallagmatic equation, which, in this 
administrative interpretation, links exclusivity to the exempt activity with 
distortion of competition, implies an argument that restricts the applicability of the 
exemption to an even greater degree, by connecting it to an impassable EU limit 
on the recognition of the exemption. The provision of cleaning services in the area 
of healthcare can and must entail a level of technicality and intensity which is not 
comparable to that done in the context of other activities. On account of its 
organisation and nature, therefore, the provision of the service acquires singular 
and specific features, making it undeniable that the service must be provided in a 
particular and regulated manner, subject to very specific regulations which ensure 
that it is fully adapted to the ultimate purpose of the exempt activity – healthcare. 
Even the Court of Justice itself recognises that the application of the exemption in 
itself already implies a distortion in the functioning of the market, on account of 
being an exception to the liability to tax of the supply of goods and services for 
consideration. 
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 
12. The appellant (ANS AIE) considers it appropriate to request a preliminary 
ruling, as it believes the literal interpretation of the national provision – ‘directly 
and exclusively’, point (a) of the first subsubparagraph of Article 20(1)(6) of the 
AGRUPACIÓ DE NETEJA SANITARIA 
 
7 
VAT Law – could undermine the purpose of the exemption, as it would restrict it 
excessively. The interpretation of the terms must be consistent with the objectives 
pursued by such exemptions and comply with the requirements of fiscal neutrality 
inherent in the common system of VAT, without imposing an interpretation which 
makes [the exemption] almost inapplicable. The Court of Justice has itself 
acknowledged that the provision of services by the EIG may be done using its 
own means or through third parties. 
13. The respondent considers that the conditions for requesting a preliminary 
ruling are not satisfied, as the provision of EU law at issue – Article 132(1)(f) of 
Directive 2006/112/EC – has been interpreted by the Court of Justice, defining the 
circumstances in which it is applicable. The ‘acte clair’ exception therefore 
applies. In the present case, it has been shown that, while the cleaning services are 
necessary auxiliary activities, [the exemption] immediately or by itself causes 
distortions of competition and should, therefore, be refused. And that conclusion 
does not imply an excessively restrictive interpretation of the exemption, but 
rather it ensures that the harmful effects on competition which the legislation 
proscribes do not occur. 
POINT OF VIEW OF THE ADJUDICATING BODY 
14. This court takes the view that the definition of the exemption contained in 
Article 132(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC, provided by the Court of Justice in its 
rulings, must, as regards its purpose, the extent to which it is to be interpreted by 
those applying it and its limits, lead the national legislature and, therefore, the 
authority that applies and controls it to give full effect to that exemption, without 
resorting to absolute or circular grammatical interpretations such that it is 
rendered ineffective and, therefore, the fundamental reason for which the EU 
legislature introduced the exemption is undermined. The national legislature must 
respect the full effectiveness of the exemption, exactly as it was designed by the 
EU legislature and has been interpreted by the Court of Justice, at the cost of 
giving rise to different treatment in the case of activities which are considered to 
be in the interests of the public as a whole. The EU rulings that we have 
mentioned point unambiguously in that direction. The foregoing is reflected in 
paragraphs 50, 51, 52 and 53 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 May 
2017, [Commission v Luxembourg (C-274/15, EU:C:2017:333]). 
15. The work which the Court of Justice has been doing to interpret that 
exemption should also be highlighted, removing, so to speak, the rigidities which 
were apparent in the legislation and interpretations of the Member States. Thus, 
initially, the benefit was restricted to the direct provision of the services by the 
AIEs created by their members, doing away with the possibility that partnerships 
with the private sector could be accepted in the case of certain services, or areas of 
those services, where the market may demonstrate greater efficiency or 
knowledge of the particular area in question. Subsequently, the Court of Justice 
has determined that AIEs created by their members and carrying on exempt 
activities do not lose the possibility of applying the exemption if they provide the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 22. 4. 2024 – CASE C-379/24 
 
8 
services to non-members, [the services provided to non-members] obviously being 
liable in full to VAT (judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 November 2019, 
[Infohos (C-400/18, EU:C:2019:992], paragraph 54). 
16. The interpretation of the requirement by the tax inspectorate and the 
TEARC, in relation to services used ‘exclusively in the course of that activity’, 
starts from the premiss that the hospital cleaning service is a ‘general’ service ‘not 
necessary for or directly linked to the activity carried on by the members of the 
AIE’ and, hence, the refusal of the exemption under Article 20(1)(6) of the VAT 
Law is justified. There can, therefore, be no doubt that, if the provision of services 
for the activity is interpreted to mean that it should be ‘exclusive’, in the sense of 
‘sole’ and ‘indissolubly linked’, the purpose of the rule may be lost in the case of 
services which are necessary, linked, but not exclusive to a sector or activity. The 
risk of that interpretation of the national rule becoming consolidated implies 
evading the purpose envisaged by the EU legislature for the exemption contained 
in Directive 2006/112/EC and transposed into national law with that added 
requirement, interpreted in that manner for cleaning services. 
QUESTIONS REFERRED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 
ONE. Is a national rule – Article 20(1)(6) of the VAT Law – which contains the 
stipulation that it relates to services provided directly and exclusively to the 
exempt activity (‘(a) such services are used directly and exclusively in the 
course of that activity and are necessary in order to carry it out;’) contrary to 
the meaning and purpose intended by the EU legislature with the exemption 
contained in Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 
2006 on the common system of value added tax, where that stipulation is 
interpreted such that a service – cleaning in the area of healthcare – [is not 
considered to be] exclusive to that exempt sector, even though it is singular, 
technical and complex in its organisation and nature, as well as absolutely 
necessary? 
TWO. Is an interpretation of Article 20(1)(6) of the VAT Law contrary to the 
meaning and purpose intended by the EU legislature with the exemption contained 
in Article 132(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC where, in order to refuse the 
exemption in accordance with EU limits, non-exclusivity in the provision of the 
service to the activity is equated with causing distortion of competition, thereby 
combining national and EU limits in order to refuse it? Please clarify whether the 
limit of ‘not distorting competition’ implies refusing the exemption, if it is not 
disputed by the parties, whatever the extent of its effect may be ([judgment of 
20 November 2003, Taksatorringen, C-8/01, EU:C:2003:621], paragraph 48), on 
the basis that any exemption is a break with the general principle – acknowledged 
by the Court of Justice – of liability to tax. 
… 
[Stay of proceedings, statement of no right of appeal against this order] 
AGRUPACIÓ DE NETEJA SANITARIA 
 
9 
ANNEX 
Decision of the TEAC, 15 December 2022, administrative complaint: 
00-03923-2021, which clearly states the interpretation – and its evolution over 
time – which is given to the exemption provided for in Article 20(1)(6) of the 
VAT Law. 
… 
[Abbreviations, signatures and attestation]