CELEX: 62008CA0473
Language: en
Date: 2010-01-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-473/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Ingenieurbüro Eulitz GbR Thomas und Marion Eulitz v Finanzamt Dresden I (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(1)(j) — Exemption — Tuition given privately by teachers and covering school or university education — Services provided by an independent teacher in the context of continuing professional training courses organised by a separate entity)

13.3.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 63/14
            
         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Ingenieurbüro Eulitz GbR Thomas und Marion Eulitz v Finanzamt Dresden I
   (Case C-473/08) (1)
   
   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13A(1)(j) - Exemption - Tuition given privately by teachers and covering school or university education - Services provided by an independent teacher in the context of continuing professional training courses organised by a separate entity)
   2010/C 63/22
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Sächsisches Finanzgericht
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Ingenieurbüro Eulitz GbR Thomas and Marion Eulitz
   
      Defendant: Finanzamt Dresden I
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sächsisches Finanzgericht — Interpretation of Article 13A(1)(j) 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) — Exemption for ‘tuition given privately by teachers and covering school or university education’ — Teaching given by a graduate engineer on advanced training courses provided by a private school for the award of post-university specialist qualifications in preventive fire protection to engineers and architects — Supply of teaching services on a continuous basis and performance in parallel of management tasks on certain training courses — Receipt of fees even where courses cancelled in the absence of enrolled students
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 13A(1)(j) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that teaching work which a graduate engineer performs at an education institute established as a private-law association for participants in advanced training courses — culminating in an examination — who already have at least a university or higher technical college qualification as an architect or an engineer or who have an equivalent education can constitute ‘tuition … covering school or university education’ within the meaning of that provision. Activities other than teaching in the strict sense can also constitute such tuition, provided that they are carried out, essentially, in the context of the transfer of knowledge and skills between a teacher and pupils or students and cover school or university education. It is for the referring court, if need be, to ascertain whether all the activities at issue in the main proceedings are ‘tuition’ covering ‘school or university education’ within the meaning of that provision.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 13A(1)(j) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a person such as Mr Eulitz, a partner in the claimant in the main proceedings, who performs teaching work for training courses offered by another body, cannot be regarded as having given tuition ‘privately’ within the meaning of that provision.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.02.2009.