Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2003 in Case C-45/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof ): Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische Psychologie v Finanzamt Gießen (VAT — Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Exemption — Psychotherapeutic treatment given in an out-patient facility provided by a foundation governed by private law (charitable establishment) employing qualified psychologists who are not doctors — Direct effect)
Date: 2004-01-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, medical institution, provision of services, psychology, tax exemption

10.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

2.

(Fifth Chamber)

of 6 November 2003

in Case C-45/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof ): Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für
Klinische Psychologie v Finanzamt Gießen (1)

for

the purposes

of
Recognition of an establishment
Article 13A(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 does not
presuppose a formal recognition procedure; nor must such
recognition necessarily derive from national tax law provisions.
Where the national rules pertaining to recognition contain
restrictions which exceed the limits of the discretion allowed to
Member States under that provision, it is for the national court
to determine, in the light of all the relevant facts, whether a
taxable person must none the less be regarded as an ‘other duly
recognised establishment of a similar nature’ within the meaning
of that provision.

(VAT — Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) of the Sixth Directive 77/
388/EEC — Exemption — Psychotherapeutic treatment
given in an out-patient facility provided by a foundation
governed
establishment)
employing qualified psychologists who are not doctors —
Direct effect)

law (charitable

private

by

(2004/C 7/03)

(Language of the case: German)

3.

4.

Since the exemption envisaged in Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth
Directive 77/388 is not dependent on the legal form of the
taxable person providing the medical or paramedical services
referred to in that provision, psychotherapeutic
treatment
provided by a foundation governed by private law and given by
psychotherapists employed by the foundation may benefit from
that exemption.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings,
Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 may
be relied on by a taxable person before a national court in order
to contest the application of rules of national law which are
incompatible with that provision.

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

(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.

In Case C-45/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Christoph-
Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische Psychologie and Finanzamt
Gießen, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(b) and (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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting as
President of the Fifth Chamber, P.
Jann and of A. Rosas
(Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 Novem-
ber 2003, in which it has ruled:

1.

Psychotherapeutic treatment given in an out-patient facility of
a foundation governed by private law by qualified psychologists
who are not doctors is not an activity ‘closely related’ to hospital
or medical care within the meaning of Article 13A(1)(b) 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, except where such treatment is actually
given as a service ancillary to the hospital or medical care
received by the patients in question and constituting the
in that
principal service. However, the term ‘medical care’
provision must be interpreted as covering all provision of
medical care envisaged in letter (c) of the same provision,
including services provided by persons who are not doctors but
who give paramedical
such as psychotherapeutic
treatment given by qualified psychologists.

services,

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 6 November 2003

in Case C-101/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Göta hovrätt): Bodil Lindqvist (1)

(Directive 95/46/EC — Scope — Publication of personal
data on the internet — Place of publication — Definition of
transfer of personal data to third countries — Freedom of
expression — Compatibility with Directive 95/46 of greater
protection for personal data under the national legislation of
a Member State)

(2004/C 7/04)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

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

In Case C-101/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Göta hovrätt (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in the
criminal proceedings before that court against Bodil Lindqvist,
on, inter alia, the interpretation of Directive 95/46/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995