Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2001:190
Date: 2001-03-29
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Luxembourg

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Manifestly irrelevant 
questions and questions regarding hypothetical problems in a context which precludes 
any useful answer — Questions not related to the purpose of the main proceedings 
(Art. 234 EC) 
I - 7467 
SUMMARY — CASE C-267/99 
2. Preliminary rulings — jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Interpretation sought 
owing to the use of a concept in a provision of Community law adopted with a view to 
the transposition of a directive into internal law, but in circumstances different from 
those envisaged by the corresponding Community provision — jurisdiction to provide 
such an interpretation 
(Art. 234 EC) 
3. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws —· Turnover taxes — Common system of 
value added tax — Discretion for Member States to apply a reduced rate — 
Exercise — Limits — Observance of principle of fiscal neutrality 
(Council Directive 77/388, Arts. 12(4) and 28(2)(e)) 
4. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of 
value added tax — Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive — Liberal 
professions mentioned in paragraph 2 of Annex F — Meaning — Criteria — Activity 
of managing agent of buildings in co-ownership — Assessment by the national court 
(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 28(3)(b) and Annex F(2)) 
1. In the context of the cooperation 
between the Court of Justice and the 
national courts provided for by Arti­
cle 234 EC, it is solely for the national 
court before which the dispute has been 
brought, and which must assume 
responsibility for the subsequent judi­
cial decision, to determine, in the light 
of the particular circumstances of the 
case, both the need for a preliminary 
ruling in order to enable it to deliver 
judgment and the relevance of the 
questions which it submits to the 
Court. Consequently, where the ques­
tions submitted concern the interpreta­
tion of Community law, the Court of 
Justice is, in principle, bound to give a 
ruling. 
Nevertheless, in exceptional circum­
stances, the Court can examine the 
conditions in which the case was re­
ferred to it by the national court, in 
order to assess whether it has jurisdic­
tion. The Court may refuse to rule on a 
question referred for a preliminary 
ruling by a national court only where 
it is quite obvious that the interpreta­
tion of Community law that is sought 
bears no relation to the actual facts of 
the main action or its purpose, where 
the problem is hypothetical, or where 
the Court does not have before it the 
factual or legal information necessary 
to give a useful answer to the questions 
submitted to it. 
(see paras. 23-24) 
I - 7468 
URBING-ADAM 
2. The Court has jurisdiction to reply to 
questions referred for a preliminary 
ruling bearing on provisions of Com­
munity law where, in regulating inter­
nal situations, domestic legislation 
adopts the same solutions as those 
adopted in Community law so as to 
provide for a single procedure in com­
parable situations. It is clearly in the 
Community interest that, in order to 
forestall future differences of interpre­
tation, provisions or concepts taken 
from Community law should be inter­
preted uniformly, irrespective of the 
circumstances in which they are to 
apply. That reasoning applies even 
more when the national legislation 
which uses a concept in a provision of 
Community law has been adopted with 
a view to the transposition into internal 
law of the directive of which the said 
provision forms part. 
It follows that, in such a situation, the 
fact that the concept of Community 
law whose interpretation is requested is 
to be applied, in the context of national 
law, in circumstances different from 
those envisaged by the corresponding 
Community provision does not of itself 
exclude all links between the interpre­
tation sought and the subject-matter of 
the main proceedings. 
(see paras. 27-29) 
3. It is for each Member State to deter­
mine and define the transactions to 
which may be applied a reduced rate of 
value added tax under Article 12(4) of 
the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the 
harmonisation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to turnover 
taxes, until 31 December 1992, and 
under Article 28(2)(e) of that directive, 
as amended by Directive 92/77 supple­
menting the common system of value 
added tax and amending Directive 
77/388 (approximation of VAT rates), 
as from 1 January 1993, subject to the 
necessity to respect the principle of 
neutrality of the value added tax. 
That principle precludes in particular 
treating similar goods and supplies of 
services, which are thus in competition 
with each other, differently for VAT 
purposes, so that those goods or sup­
plies must be subjected to a uniform 
rate. 
(see paras. 36, 41 
and operative part) 
I - 7469 
SUMMARY — CASE C-267/99 
4. Annex F to the Sixth Directive 77/388 
on the harmonisation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to turnover 
taxes lists the activities exempted from 
value added tax under Article 28(3)(b) 
of the directive. The liberal professions 
mentioned in Annex F(2) to that direc­
tive are activities which involve a 
marked intellectual character, require 
a high-level qualification and are 
usually subject to clear and strict 
professional regulation. In the exercise 
of such an activity, the personal ele­
ment is of special importance and such 
exercise always involves a large mea­
sure of independence in the accom­
plishment of the professional activities. 
It is for the referring court to decide 
whether, having regard to those cri­
teria, the activity of managing agent of 
buildings in co-ownership, as envisaged 
by the relevant domestic legislation, 
must be regarded as a liberal profes­
sion. 
(see paras. 39-41 and operative part) 
I - 7470