Case C-228/20: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — I GmbH v Finanzamt H (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(b) — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Exemption for hospital and medical care — Private hospital — Duly recognised establishment — Comparable social conditions)
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, health care, medical institution, private medical treatment, private sector, public sector, tax exemption, universal health coverage








C_2022213EN.01000601.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/6






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — I GmbH v Finanzamt H
(Case C-228/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(b) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Exemption for hospital and medical care - Private hospital - Duly recognised establishment - Comparable social conditions)
(2022/C 213/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: I GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt H

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 132(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which — by stipulating that the provision of medical care by a private hospital is to be exempt from value added tax if that establishment is approved in accordance with the national provisions relating to the general health insurance regime, following its inclusion in a Land-level hospital plan or the conclusion of care supply contracts with statutory health insurance or substitute funds — results in comparable private hospitals which supply similar services under social conditions comparable with those applicable to bodies governed by public law being treated differently as regards the exemption laid down in that provision;










2.


Article 132(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether medical care provided by a private hospital is supplied under social conditions comparable with those applicable to bodies governed by public law, the competent authorities of a Member State may take into consideration — where they are intended to attain the objective of reducing medical costs and making high-quality care more accessible to individuals — the regulatory conditions applicable to the services supplied by hospitals governed by public law and indicators of that private hospital’s performance in terms of staff, premises and equipment and the cost-efficiency of its management, in so far as those indicators are also applicable to establishments governed by public law. Account may also be taken of the method of calculating fixed-rate daily fees and the fact that the services supplied by that private hospital are borne by the social security regime or under contracts concluded with public authorities, so that the cost borne by patients is similar to that borne by patients for similar services supplied by hospitals governed by public law.






(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.