Case C-106/05: Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of  8 June 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — L.u.P. GmbH v Finanzamt Bochum-Mitte (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) and (2)(a) — Medical care provided by bodies other than those governed by public law — Medical care provided in the exercise of a medical profession — Medical tests carried out by a laboratory governed by private law outside a centre for treatment on prescription from general practitioners — Conditions for the exemption — Member States' discretion — Limits)
Date: 2006-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, medical diagnosis, tax exemption, tax harmonisation, tax system

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/7

Judgement of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 June 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Land-
sret — Denmark) — De Danske Bilimportører v Skattemi-
nisteriet

Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
nanzhof, Germany) — L.u.P. GmbH v Finanzamt Bochum-
Mitte

(Case C-98/05) (1)

(Case C-106/05) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11(A)(2)(a) and (3)(c) —
Taxable amount — Registration duty on new motor vehicles)

(2006/C 178/10)

Language of the case: Danish

(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13A(1)(b)
and (c) and (2)(a) — Medical care provided by bodies other
than those governed by public law — Medical care provided
in the exercise of a medical profession — Medical tests
carried out by a laboratory governed by private law outside a
centre for treatment on prescription from general practi-
tioners — Conditions for the exemption — Member States'
discretion — Limits)

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: De Danske Bilimportører

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Inter-
pretation of Article 11(A)(2)(a) and (3)(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 assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145 p. 1) — Inclusion in the taxable amount
relating to the sale of a new motor vehicle of a tax payable on
registration of the vehicle

Operative part of the judgement

In the context of a contract of sale providing that, in accordance with
the buyer's intended use of the vehicle, the dealer will supply it regis-
tered and for a price which includes the registration duty on new
motor vehicles he paid before supplying the vehicle, that duty, for
which the occurrence triggering liability is not the supply of the vehicle
but its first registration in national territory, is not covered by the
concept of taxes, duties,
levies and charges within the meaning of
Article 11(A)(2)(a) 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. Such a duty corresponds to an amount
received by the taxable person from the purchaser of the vehicle as
repayment for expenses paid out in the name and for the account of
the latter within the meaning of Article 11(A)(3)(c).

(1) OJ C 106, 20.4.2005.

(2006/C 178/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L.u.P. GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Bochum-Mitte

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Inter-
pretation of Article 13A(1)(b) and (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC:
Sixth Council Directive 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 assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p.1) — Exemptions — Activities closely
related to hospital or medical care — Medical
laboratory
analyses ordered by general practitioners

Operative part of the judgement

The Court hereby rules:

Article 13A(1)(b) 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
medical tests which have as their purpose the observation and exami-
nation of patients for prophylactic purposes, carried out, like those at
issue in the main proceedings, by a laboratory governed by private
law outside a centre for treatment on prescription from general practi-
tioners, may come within the exemption provided for by that provision
as medical care provided by another duly recognised establishment of
a similar nature within the meaning of that provision.

C 178/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.7.2006

Article 13A(1)(b) and (2)(a) of
that directive does not preclude
national legislation which makes the exemption of such medical tests
subject to conditions which, first, do not apply to the exemption of
care provided by the general practitioners who prescribed them and,
second, are different from those applicable to closely related activities
to medical care within the meaning of the first-mentioned provision.

Article 13A(1)(b) of the same directive precludes national legislation
which makes the exemption of medical tests carried out by a labora-
tory governed by private law outside a centre for treatment subject to
the condition that
they be carried out under medical supervision.
However, that provision permits such legislation to make the exemp-
tion of those tests subject to the condition that at least 40 % of those
services must be intended for persons insured by a social security
authority.

(1) OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

85/432/EEC,

78/1027/EEC,

80/155/EEC,
78/1026/EEC,
85/384/EEC,
93/16/EEC
concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general
care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect,
pharmacist and doctor (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1)

80/154/EEC,

85/433/EEC

and

Operative part of the judgement

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to transpose Articles 1 to 4
and 9 to 13 of Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council 14 May 2001 amending Council Direc-
tives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the
recognition of professional qualifications, and Council Directives
77/452/EEC,
78/687/EEC,
78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC,
85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC on
the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practi-
tioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and
doctor,
its obligations
under that directive.

the French Republic has failed to fulfil

77/453/EEC,

78/686/EEC,

Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v French
Republic

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(Case C-164/05) (1)

(1) OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2001/19/EC — General system for the recognition of profes-
sional qualifications — Mutual recognition of diplomas,
certificates and other qualifications — Nurse, dentist, veter-
inary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor —
Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 178/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Maidani and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. De Bergues and
C. Bergeot-Nunes, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
adopt
the measures necessary to comply with Directive
2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and
92/51/EEC concerning the general system for the recognition
Council Directives
of
78/687/EEC,
77/452/EEC,

qualifications,

77/453/EEC,

78/686/EEC,

professional

and

Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 June 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassa-
tion, Belgium) — Uradex SCRL v Union Professionnelle de
la Radio et de la Télédistribution (RTD), Société Intercom-
munale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (BRUTELE)

(Case C-169/05) (1)

(Copyright and related rights — Directive 93/83/EEC —
Article 9(2) — Scope of the powers of a collecting society
deemed to be mandated to manage the rights of a copyright
owner or holder of related rights which has not transferred
the management of his rights to it — Exercise of the right to
grant or refuse permission to a cable operator to retransmit a
programme by cable)

(2006/C 178/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation