Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2002 in Case C-141/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Ambulanter Pflegedienst Kügler GmbH v Finanzamt für Körperschaften I in Berlin (Article 13(A)(1)(c) and (g) of the Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) — Exemption of care provided by capital companies — Services closely linked to welfare and social security work supplied by organisations, not being bodies governed by public law, recognised as charitable by the Member State concerned — Direct effect)
Date: 2002-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, company with share capital, health care, interpretation of the law, tax exemption

C 274/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.11.2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 19 September 2002

(Sixth Chamber)

of 10 September 2002

in Case C-114/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(State aid — Agriculture — Aid awarded in the form of an
interest-rate rebate for loans lasting less than one year —
Article 87(1) and (3)(a) and (c) EC — Commission Notice
96/C 44/02 on State aids: subsidised short-term loans in
agriculture (crédits de gestion) — Small amount of aid —
No comments from interested parties — Operating aid —
Aid relating to products subject to a common organisation
of the market — Restrictions on the free movement of goods
— Statement of reasons)

(2002/C 274/11)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-114/00, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamon-
de) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
D. Triantafyllou): Application for annulment of Commission
Decision 2000/240/EC of 22 December 1999 concerning an
aid scheme implemented by Spain to finance operating capital
in the agricultural sector in Extremadura (OJ 2000 L 76, p. 16),
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 19 September 2002, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.

in Case C-141/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Ambulanter Pflegedienst Kügler
GmbH v Finanzamt für Körperschaften I in Berlin (1)

(Article 13(A)(1)(c) and (g) of the Sixth Directive (77/388/
EEC) — Exemption of care provided by capital companies —
Services closely linked to welfare and social security work
supplied by organisations, not being bodies governed by
public law, recognised as charitable by the Member State
concerned — Direct effect)

(2002/C 274/12)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-141/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
(Germany) for a preliminary
EC by the Bundesfinanzhof
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Ambulanter Pflegedienst Kügler GmbH and Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I
interpretation of
in Berlin, on the
Article 13(A)(1)(c) and (g) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/
388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws
of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: F. Macken (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
mann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 September 2002, in
which it has ruled:

1.

2.

The exemption envisaged in Article 13(A)(1)(c) of the Sixth
Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment is not dependent on the legal form of the
taxable person supplying the medical or paramedical services
referred to in that provision.

The exemption envisaged in Article 13(A)(1)(c) of the Sixth
Directive (77/388/EEC) applies to the provision of care of a
therapeutic nature by a capital company running an out-patient
service under which care, including home care, is provided by
qualified nursing staff, to the exclusion of the provision of
general care and domestic help.

9.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 274/9

3.

a)

The provision of general care and domestic help by an
out-patient care service to persons in a state of physical or
economic dependence amounts to the supply of services
closely linked to welfare and social security work within
the meaning of Article 13(A)(1)(g) of the Sixth Directive
(77/388/EEC).

(b) The exemption provided for in Article 13(A)(1)(g) of the
Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) may be relied upon by a
taxable person before national courts in order to oppose
national rules incompatible with that provision. It is for
the national court to establish, in the light of all relevant
factors, whether the taxable person is an organisation
recognised as charitable within the meaning of
the
aforesaid provision.

( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 12 September 2002

in Case C-152/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil

its obligations —

Directive 86/609/EEC — Incomplete transposition)

(2002/C 274/13)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-152/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: L. Ström and J.-F. Pasquier) v French Republic
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak, and G. de Bergues):
Application for a declaration that, by failing to transpose fully
and correctly Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November
1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and adminis-
trative provisions of the Member States regarding the protec-
tion of animals used for experimental and other scientific
purposes (OJ 1986 L 358, p. 1), and in particular Articles 4, 7,
11, 12, 18 and 22 thereof, the French Republic has failed to
fulfil
its obligations under the EC Treaty, the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
S. von Bahr and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geel-
hoed, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September 2002,
in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to
ensure the correct transposition of Articles 4, 7(3), 11, 12(2),
18(1) and (3) and 22(1) of Council Directive 86/609/EEC of
24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding
the protection of animals used for experimental and other
scientific purposes, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 10 September 2002

in Case C-172/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landgericht Köln): Ferring Arzneimittel GmbH v
Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH (1)

(Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC —
Medicinal products — Withdrawal of parallel import licence
in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for
the medicinal product of reference by the holder of that
authorisation)

(2002/C 274/14)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-172/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Landgericht Köln (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Ferring
Arzneimittel GmbH and Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH,
on the interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC, the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of
the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
J.-P. Puissochet,
V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 10 September 2002, in which it has
ruled:

1. Article 28 EC precludes national legislation under which the
withdrawal of the marketing authorisation of reference for a
medicinal product on application by the holder thereof means
that the parallel import licence for that product automatically
ceases to be valid.

2.

The fact that the new version of the medicinal product has been
placed on the market of the Member State of importation alone
or is also found on the market in other Member States does not
alter the answer to the first question.