Case C-45/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, by order of that court of 14 December 2000 in the case of Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische Psychologie against Finanzamt Giessen
Date: 2001-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, medical institution, provision of services, psychology, tax exemption

C 134/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.5.2001

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
nanzhof, by order of that court of 14 December 2000
in the case of Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische
Psychologie against Finanzamt Giessen

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Special Com-
missioners (United Kingdom), by order of 6 February
2001, in the case of Océ van der Grinten NV against
Inland Revenue Commissioners

(Case C-45/01)

(2001/C 134/06)

(Case C-58/01)

(2001/C 134/07)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 14 December 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 2 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische Psycholog-
ie against Finanzamt Giessen on the following questions:

1. Does psychotherapeutic treatment, given in an out-
patient
facility provided by a foundation (charitable
establishment) employing qualified psychologists who
are licensed under the Medical Practitioners Law (Heil-
praktikergesetz) but who are not registered as doctors,
qualify as ‘closely related activities’ to hospital and medical
care within the meaning of Article 13A(1)(b) of Directive
77/388/EEC (1)?

2.

3.

4.

In order for there to be an ‘other duly recognized
establishment of a similar nature’ within the meaning of
Article 13A(1)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC, must there be
a formal recognition procedure or can recognition also
derive from other regulations (e.g. regulations concerning
the assumption of costs by authorities responsible for the
provision of social security) which apply equally to
hospitals, centres for medical treatment and other estab-
lishments?

Is an exemption from tax unavailable to the extent that
the authorities responsible for providing social security
do not reimburse, or only partially reimburse, patients
for the costs of psychotherapeutic treatment given by the
aforementioned employees of the plaintiff?

Is the psychotherapeutic treatment provided by the
plaintiff exempt from tax on the basis of the neutrality of
value added tax, because the psychotherapists it employs
could have provided the same treatment on a tax-exempt
basis under Article 13A(1)(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC if
they had provided it themselves as self-employed taxable
persons?

Is the plaintiff entitled to rely on the tax exemption of
its transactions involving psychotherapeutic treatment
under Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 77/388/EEC?
Pending the decision of the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities,
the appeal proceedings are
stayed.

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Special Com-
missioners (United Kingdom) of 6 February 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 12 February 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Océ van der Grinten NV
against Inland Revenue Commissioners, on the following
questions:

1.

2.

3.

In the circumstances set out in the Order for reference, is
the 5 % charge specified in sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of
Article 10.3 of the UK/Netherlands Double Taxation
Convention 1980 (‘the 5 % charge’) a withholding tax on
profits which a subsidiary distributes to its parent com-
pany within
of Council Directive
5.1
90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 (‘the Directive’)?

article

If the 5 % charge is such a withholding tax is its effect
preserved as a consequence of Article 7.2 of the Directive?

If the 5% charge is preserved only as a consequence of
article 7.2 of the Directive, is Article 7.2 invalid for want
of reasoning or failure to consult
the ESC and the
European Parliament, with the result that it does not have
the effect of preserving the right of the United Kingdom
to charge the 5 % tax?

(1) on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of
parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ
L 225, 20.08.1990, p. 6).

Action brought on 12 February 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-59/01)

(2001/C 134/08)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Christina Tufvesson and Antonio Aresu, acting
as Agents.