CELEX: C2001/134/07
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-58/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Special Commissioners (United Kingdom), by order of 6 February 2001, in the case of Océ van der Grinten NV against Inland Revenue Commissioners

C 134/4                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.5.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Special Com-
nanzhof, by order of that court of 14 December 2000                        missioners (United Kingdom), by order of 6 February
in the case of Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische                    2001, in the case of Océ van der Grinten NV against
           Psychologie against Finanzamt Giessen                                           Inland Revenue Commissioners
                          (Case C-45/01)                                                             (Case C-58/01)
                         (2001/C 134/06)                                                            (2001/C 134/07)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                       European Communities by an order of the Special Com-
(Federal Finance Court) of 14 December 2000, received at the               missioners (United Kingdom) of 6 February 2001, which was
Court Registry on 2 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in             received at the Court Registry on 12 February 2001, for a
the case of Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische Psycholog-            preliminary ruling in the case of Océ van der Grinten NV
ie against Finanzamt Giessen on the following questions:                   against Inland Revenue Commissioners, on the following
                                                                           questions:
1.   Does psychotherapeutic treatment, given in an out-
     patient facility provided by a foundation (charitable                 1.    In the circumstances set out in the Order for reference, is
     establishment) employing qualified psychologists who                        the 5 % charge specified in sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of
     are licensed under the Medical Practitioners Law (Heil-                     Article 10.3 of the UK/Netherlands Double Taxation
     praktikergesetz) but who are not registered as doctors,                     Convention 1980 (‘the 5 % charge’) a withholding tax on
     qualify as ‘closely related activities’ to hospital and medical             profits which a subsidiary distributes to its parent com-
     care within the meaning of Article 13A(1)(b) of Directive                   pany within article 5.1 of Council Directive
     77/388/EEC (1)?                                                             90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 (‘the Directive’)?
2.   In order for there to be an ‘other duly recognized                    2.    If the 5 % charge is such a withholding tax is its effect
     establishment of a similar nature’ within the meaning of                    preserved as a consequence of Article 7.2 of the Directive?
     Article 13A(1)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC, must there be
     a formal recognition procedure or can recognition also
                                                                           3.    If the 5% charge is preserved only as a consequence of
     derive from other regulations (e.g. regulations concerning
                                                                                 article 7.2 of the Directive, is Article 7.2 invalid for want
     the assumption of costs by authorities responsible for the
                                                                                 of reasoning or failure to consult the ESC and the
     provision of social security) which apply equally to
                                                                                 European Parliament, with the result that it does not have
     hospitals, centres for medical treatment and other estab-
                                                                                 the effect of preserving the right of the United Kingdom
     lishments?
                                                                                 to charge the 5 % tax?
     Is an exemption from tax unavailable to the extent that
     the authorities responsible for providing social security
     do not reimburse, or only partially reimburse, patients               (1) on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of
                                                                               parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ
     for the costs of psychotherapeutic treatment given by the                 L 225, 20.08.1990, p. 6).
     aforementioned employees of the plaintiff?
3.   Is the psychotherapeutic treatment provided by the
     plaintiff exempt from tax on the basis of the neutrality of
     value added tax, because the psychotherapists it employs
     could have provided the same treatment on a tax-exempt
     basis under Article 13A(1)(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC if
     they had provided it themselves as self-employed taxable
     persons?
                                                                           Action brought on 12 February 2001 by the Commission
4.   Is the plaintiff entitled to rely on the tax exemption of             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     its transactions involving psychotherapeutic treatment
     under Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 77/388/EEC?                                        (Case C-59/01)
     Pending the decision of the Court of Justice of the
     European Communities, the appeal proceedings are
     stayed.                                                                                        (2001/C 134/08)
                                                                           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.                                                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February
                                                                           2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Christina Tufvesson and Antonio Aresu, acting
                                                                           as Agents.