CELEX: 62014CA0334
Language: en
Date: 2015-07-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-334/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium)) — The Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Article 13(A)(1)(b) and (c) — Hospital and medical care — Closely related activities — Activity of transporting human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care — Self-employed activity — Hospitals, centres for medical treatment and diagnosis — Establishment of a similar nature)

7.9.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 294/14
            
         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium)) — The Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier
   (Case C-334/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Article 13(A)(1)(b) and (c) - Hospital and medical care - Closely related activities - Activity of transporting human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care - Self-employed activity - Hospitals, centres for medical treatment and diagnosis - Establishment of a similar nature))
   (2015/C 294/18)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Referring court
   
   Cour d’appel de Mons
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: The Belgian State
   
      Defendant: Nathalie De Fruytier
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Neither Article 13(A)(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, nor Article 13(A)(1)(c) thereof, can be interpreted as applying to the transportation, for clinics and laboratories, of human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care, by a third party who is self-employed and whose services are covered by the reimbursement made by the social security system. In particular, such an activity does not qualify for an exemption from value added tax as an activity closely related to services of a medical nature as provided for in Article 13(A)(1)(b), since that self-employed third party cannot be characterised as a ‘body governed by public law’ or fall within the definition of a ‘hospital’, a ‘centre for medical treatment’ or a centre for ‘diagnosis’ or any ‘other duly recognised establishment of a similar nature’, operating under social conditions comparable to those applicable to bodies governed by public law.
   
      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.