CELEX: C2004/007/03
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-10 00:00:00
Title: 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)

10.1.2004               EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 7/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         2.    Recognition of an establishment for the purposes of
                                                                                     Article 13A(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 does not
                                                                                     presuppose a formal recognition procedure; nor must such
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                            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
                       of 6 November 2003                                            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
in Case C-45/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                             recognised establishment of a similar nature’ within the meaning
the Bundesfinanzhof ): Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für                                of that provision.
        Klinische Psychologie v Finanzamt Gießen (1)
                                                                               3.    Since the exemption envisaged in Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth
(VAT — Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) of the Sixth Directive 77/                          Directive 77/388 is not dependent on the legal form of the
388/EEC — Exemption — Psychotherapeutic treatment                                    taxable person providing the medical or paramedical services
given in an out-patient facility provided by a foundation                            referred to in that provision, psychotherapeutic treatment
governed by private law (charitable establishment)                                   provided by a foundation governed by private law and given by
employing qualified psychologists who are not doctors —                              psychotherapists employed by the foundation may benefit from
                            Direct effect)                                           that exemption.
                                                                               4.    In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings,
                           (2004/C 7/03)                                             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
                   (Language of the case: German)                                    incompatible with that provision.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                   in the European Court Reports)
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-                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische Psychologie and Finanzamt
Gießen, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) of                                          of 6 November 2003
the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating                    in Case C-101/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                                        the Göta hovrätt): Bodil Lindqvist (1)
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                        (Directive 95/46/EC — Scope — Publication of personal
(Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von                  data on the internet — Place of publication — Definition of
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 Novem-                   transfer of personal data to third countries — Freedom of
ber 2003, in which it has ruled:                                               expression — Compatibility with Directive 95/46 of greater
                                                                               protection for personal data under the national legislation of
                                                                                                          a Member State)
1.    Psychotherapeutic treatment given in an out-patient facility of
      a foundation governed by private law by qualified psychologists                                      (2004/C 7/04)
      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                                     (Language of the case: Swedish)
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      basis of assessment, except where such treatment is actually                                 in the European Court Reports)
      given as a service ancillary to the hospital or medical care
      received by the patients in question and constituting the
      principal service. However, the term ‘medical care’ in that
      provision must be interpreted as covering all provision of               In Case C-101/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
      medical care envisaged in letter (c) of the same provision,              by the Göta hovrätt (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in the
      including services provided by persons who are not doctors but           criminal proceedings before that court against Bodil Lindqvist,
      who give paramedical services, such as psychotherapeutic                 on, inter alia, the interpretation of Directive 95/46/EC of the
      treatment given by qualified psychologists.                              European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995