Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 November 2003 in Case C-212/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck): Margarete Unterpertinger v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for medical care provided in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Expert medical report)
Date: 2004-01-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, disability insurance, interpretation of the law, medical examination, physician, tax exemption

C 7/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.1.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 20 November 2003

in Case C-212/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landesgericht Innsbruck): Margarete Unterpertinger
v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for medical care provided
in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions
— Expert medical report)

(2004/C 7/08)

(Language of the case: German)

of 18 November 2003

in Case C-216/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Handelsgericht Wien): Budeˇjovický Budvar, národní
podnik v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH (1)

(Protection of geographical indications and designations of
origin — Bilateral convention between a Member State and
a non-member country protecting indications of geographical
source from that non-member country — Articles 28 EC and
30 EC — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Article 307 EC
— Succession of States in respect of treaties)

(2004/C 7/09)

(Language of the case: German)

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

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

In Case C-212/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Margarete Unterpertinger and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt
der Arbeiter, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(c) of 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) and the Court’s case-
law resulting,
in particular, from Case C-384/98 D. v W.
[2000] ECR I-6795, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
A. Rosas (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 November
2003, in which it has ruled:

Article 13A(1)(c) of 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 to be interpreted as meaning that
the exemption from value added tax under that provision does not
apply to the services of a doctor consisting of making an expert report
on a person’s state of health in order to support or exclude a claim
for payment of a disability pension. The fact that the medical expert
was instructed by a court or pension insurance institution is irrelevant
in that respect.

(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.

In Case C-216/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Budeˇjo-
vický Budvar, národní podnik and Rudolf Ammersin GmbH
on the interpretation of Articles 28 EC, 30 EC and 307 EC,
and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on
the protection of geographical indications and designations of
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208,
p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 535/97 of
17 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 83, p. 3), the Court, composed of:
V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rappor-
teur), C. Gulmann and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 18 November 2003, in which it has
ruled:

1. Article 28 EC and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of
14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications
and designations of origin for agricultural products and
foodstuffs, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 535/
97 of 17 March 1997, do not preclude the application of a
provision of a bilateral agreement between a Member State and
a non-member country under which a simple and indirect
indication of geographical origin from that non-member country
is accorded protection in the importing Member State, whether
or not there is any risk of consumers being misled, and the
import of a product lawfully marketed in another Member State
may be prevented.

2. Article 28 EC precludes the application of a provision of a
bilateral agreement between a Member State and a non-
member country under which a name which in that country
does not directly or indirectly refer to the geographical source of