Case C-91/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 132(1)(b) and (c) — Hospital and medical care and closely related activities — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Services consisting in the performance of plastic surgery and cosmetic treatments — Interventions of a purely cosmetic nature based solely on the patient’s wishes)
Date: 2013-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sweden, VAT, aesthetic surgery, hospitalisation, interpretation of the law, tax exemption








C_2013156EN.01001201.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/12





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB
(Case C-91/12) (1)

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 132(1)(b) and (c) - Hospital and medical care and closely related activities - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - Services consisting in the performance of plastic surgery and cosmetic treatments - Interventions of a purely cosmetic nature based solely on the patient’s wishes)
2013/C 156/18
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: PFC Clinic AB

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Interpretation of Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions for medical treatment and care services — Deduction of input tax — Provision of cosmetic and reconstructive surgery services — Whether account to be taken of the purpose of the operation or treatment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning:






—


supplies of services such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in plastic surgery and other cosmetic treatments, fall within the concepts of ‘medical care’ and ‘the provision of medical care’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b) and (c) where those services are intended to diagnose, treat or cure diseases or health disorders or to protect, maintain or restore human health;










—


the subjective understanding that the person who undergoes plastic surgery or a cosmetic treatment has of it are not in themselves decisive in order to determine whether that intervention has a therapeutic purpose;










—


the fact that services such as those at issue in the main proceedings are supplied or undertaken by a licensed member of the medical profession or that the purpose of such services is determined by such a professional may influence the assessment of whether interventions such as those at issue in the main proceedings fall within the concept of ‘medical care’ or ‘the provision of medical care’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112 respectively;










—


in order to determine whether supplies of services such as those at issue in the main proceedings are exempt from VAT pursuant to Article 132(1)(b) or (c) of Directive 2006/112 all the requirements laid down in subparagraphs 1(b) or (c) thereof must be taken into account as well as the other relevant provisions in Title IX, Chapters 1 and 2, of that directive such as, as far as concerns Article 132(1)(b), Articles 131, 133 and 134 thereof.






(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.