CELEX: C2006/178/11
Language: en
Date: 2006-07-29 00:00:00
Title: 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)

29.7.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 178/7
            
         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
   (Case C-106/05) (1)
   
   (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)
   (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 — Interpretation 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 assessment (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 examination 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 practitioners, 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.
            
         
                
            
            
               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 laboratory 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 exemption 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.